Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why ADCo?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the getting-the-broadband-out-there dept.

Ian Peon writes: "Phoenix center recently released a study (pdf or doc) addressing the 'Last Mile problem.' The paper explains why no one has yet been able to crack the cable and phone providers' local monopolies -- and offers a solution: An ADCo (Alternative Distribution Companies) business model. SF Gate has a good article on this."

112 comments

  1. Why ADCo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why indeed!

  2. fp...almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Screw You, Hemos!

    And your "man-friends", too....

  3. WHITE VICTORY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This first post is a victory for Aryans everywhere! Fight against the Jewish FP seizures!

  4. Boots and braces, Studs and leather by The+Lyrics+Guy · · Score: -1

    Squiggy - Boots and Braces, Studs and Leather

    A call for unity, and old cliche
    But is sure is what we need today
    If we stand togetther we can make a change
    Put down your fists and use your brain

    We'll stand united, never fall
    Tear down all their fucking walls
    Ignore the papers, ignore the news
    Cause they don't know our points of view

    Punks and skins will make a difference
    We'll no longer keep a distance
    Boots and braces, studs and leather
    We are one forever

    it's them vs. you and you vs. them
    Don't you know we're gunna win
    Speak your mind and don't conform
    Punk wasn't meant to be a uniform

    Their ignorance has made me sick
    I'd rather be a punk than a prick
    They govern the people, so they say
    That's why I'm buttfucked every day

    1. Re:Boots and braces, Studs and leather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You should post that KPMG song. That would be funny.

  5. Interesting... by powerlinekid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting idea but not really feasible I feer. I'd love it if time-warner had a better competitor than Verizon but the govt really fucked us when they allowed the local monopolys (phone companies, power companies, etc). Now I think the thing I'd be really trying to figure out is how do we convince people that they need broadband. As with ISPs back in the day, you had to convince people that they needed, not just wanted to be on the internet. Now they need to be convinced that they need to pay $40 a month as opposed to the $17 so that AOL goes faster. I have a suspicion that this might become a losing battle, which is a shame for the technology in the long run.

    --

    can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    1. Re:Interesting... by mancxvi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how do we convince people that they need broadband

      The following argument works every so often.

      You are in a store. You can either buy one bottle of water for three dollars, or fifty bottles of water for six. Which do you choose?

      Then again, some people using AOL won't quite get it. Oh, well...

      --
      LIVE NUDE PETS!
    2. Re:Interesting... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that the apps that people use that need broadband are being killed, such as napster and other file sharing. Streaming video still works on a modem because noone has done the streaming movie (as in video rental store) idea yet which would certainly require broadband even with better technology. I'd say that 75% at least of people using the internet are perfectly happy with their 5k per second max bandwidth which is more than enough for email, web browsing and chat. Again, this just hurts the rest of us who would like to be able to go faster because we understand (and would actually utilize) the potential.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    3. Re:Interesting... by mancxvi · · Score: 1

      It's just unfortunate that the main thing advertised in the Road Runner commercials is the fact that you don't have to use your phone lines, because that's hardly the number one benefit.

      --
      LIVE NUDE PETS!
    4. Re:Interesting... by czardonic · · Score: 1

      I'd try that argument with something that isn't as cumbersome as water bottles. My first reaction was, "Where the hell am I going to keep 50 bottles of water." Unless you are talking about those small bottles. But, in that case, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy in bulk?

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    5. Re:Interesting... by mancxvi · · Score: 1

      wouldn't it be cheaper to buy in bulk?

      That's the spirit! Paying twice the price for broadband is like buying "the internet" in bulk! Fun!

      --
      LIVE NUDE PETS!
    6. Re:Interesting... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

      i know... *sigh*... but i don't know if I can 100% believe that broadband is worth it on a mass scale (meaning that it should be as wide spread as normal ISPs). Seems to be a losing venture to me. Someday hopefully technology will dictate politics... until then we'll be using "Big Name Cable OR Phone Company" for our internet needs and considering how far cable and television has come in 50 years, I'm not holding my breath.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    7. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they need to be convinced that they need to pay $40 a month as opposed to the $17 so that AOL goes faster. I have a suspicion that this might become a losing battle, which is a shame for the technology in the long run.

      Why?
      Haven't you ever wished Moore's law would stop, just for a few years? So we'd have time to write systems and programs that really tooks advantage of the hardware, before being pushed to develop for the next big thing.
      I think having alot of people on 56K connections is good for the internet. It forces people to think about IDEAS about how to use a global network, as opposed to 'hey look, video!'
      Don't get me wrong, I want technology to progress, but the rate at which most aspects of computer technology progress is inhuman. There will be a time for global wireless gigabit ethernet, but if that time is tommorow, the technology built around it will be poorly done for a long time.
      If you really want to help the technology, I'd suggest getting more people online, and getting people online for a bigger slice of the day, preferably always-on. The cost of a second phoneline plus ISP fees is close to approaching the cost of a cable modem. If the dual line price were brought down, you'd see alot more connectivity, and eventually people would opt for higher speed.

      EPS

    8. Re:Interesting... by cheese_wallet · · Score: 1

      "You are in a store. You can either buy one bottle of water for three dollars, or fifty bottles of water for six. Which do you choose?"

      You forgot to mention that at the end of the day, all the water you don't drink is thrown away.

    9. Re:Interesting... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The analogy that most americans will probably get (and by the way love) is either you can have a single plate of spaghetti or you can have the all you can salad and food bar.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    10. Re:Interesting... by mancxvi · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that at the end of the day, all the water you don't drink is thrown away.

      Wow, that makes sense in terms of broadband. The end of the day is where you get the most water, and the water never stops coming.

      --
      LIVE NUDE PETS!
    11. Re:Interesting... by Gill+Bates · · Score: 2

      You are in a store. You can either buy one bottle of water for three dollars, or fifty bottles of water for six. Which do you choose?

      plugh!

      Sorry, but this reminds me sooo much of the old Adventure game(s).

    12. Re:Interesting... by czardonic · · Score: 1

      Paying twice the price for broadband is like buying "the internet" in bulk!

      Except that you can't store the surplus and over time.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    13. Re:Interesting... by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 1

      Yeah you can. Just add a couple o' 120TB drive arrays to your system and start caching everything on the internet...

      Simple.

      That should be more than enough p0rn to keep you busy for a while. ;)

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

    14. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can put in a hub and run cables to your nearest neighbors and split the cost of the water

    15. Re:Interesting... by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      Streaming video still works on a modem because noone has done the streaming movie (as in video rental store) idea yet which would certainly require broadband even with better technology.

      Sputnik7

      Of course, it's free, so it's not exactly like the video rental store, but it is streaming on demand. I'm sure they aren't the only ones.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    16. Re:Interesting... by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      the govt really fucked us when they allowed the local monopolys (phone companies, power companies, etc).

      It wasn't a matter of "allowing" local monopolies, there isn't any other way to do it. Someone has to maintain the physical connections, and that costs money. Local Telco and Power monopolies are required to allow other companies to provide access, but no matter who you go to as your providor, you still have to pay for the maintenance of the lines. Whoever owns the lines (and thus maintains them) can charge less for access as they have less overhead to cover, thus the "monopoly" which you percieve. The "best" you could hope to achieve in further breaking up these "monopolies" is a finer granularity of monopoly, which would degrade service with no cost benefit to the consumer.

      Most of the lines in my area are owned by Pacific Bell, and the service is fine. Even in the heaviest storms service is rarely out for even a day, even though it's a rural, mountainous region with a fairly spread-out population. (Yes, there are parts of California that get real weather. I know it's hard to believe.) In one of the small outlying communities, however, the lines are owned by GTE, and the service is horrible. The office isn't big enough to support a real crew, so outages sometimes last for days, and since the profit margins are so thin the CO equipment is rarely upgraded. Modem connections top out at 19k within spitting distance of the CO.

      I know you think that further breaking up the local "monopolies" will benefit you, but believe me, it won't. All you'll get is what I've described above, spread out over the whole country.

      Of course, you could always have the government buy up all the lines, we all know how fast and efficient the government is with infrastructure maintenance! But hey, at least you'd only have to pay once a year instead of once a month...

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  6. Well isn't that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They found that the only way for telcos to survive in the future is for all the 'last miles' to be owned by a single ADCo.

    Too bad that would drive up prices. I guess a higher phone bill would be better than no phone service at all, though.

  7. More Information on ADCo by Lunastorm · · Score: -1, Redundant

    This article helps explain the ADCo in layman's terms.

    --
    You die too easily.
    1. Re:More Information on ADCo by Iamthefallen · · Score: 1

      Good evening, Karma-prostitution Vice squad, can we see some identification plase?

      Seriously, how short an attention span must you have to miss the 2 links in the header?

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
  8. Actually, What I've been wondering.. by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 1

    How limited is Cable Internet?
    I have RoadRunner, and get 500k a sec from Redhat mirrors.
    But, What happens if everyone had it?
    Would alot of new cable have to be ran, or is there a way to use different wavelengths on the wires or something.

  9. What is Goat sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Never heard of it before?

  10. The Broadband Revolution by Lunastorm · · Score: 1

    Just imagine. If ADCOs get enough support to give the local monopolies a real fight, we might actually see the long-promised broadband revolution.

    --
    You die too easily.
    1. Re:The Broadband Revolution by jonathonc · · Score: 1

      Let's be realistic now. This venture will no doubt fail, like many before it. Concentration of market power will ensure these little upstarts will be driven out of business. Each new merger and takeover means less choice to the consumer and more power to the oligopolists. The likes of AOL/Time Warner will only get stronger and will progressively censor information they don't approve of.

  11. hey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this like, breaking into voicemail boxes and stuff? I don't know what to do

  12. Less expensive alternatives? by PoiBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The article stated that the costs are such that a 33 percent market share would have to be obtained to make this financially attractive...

    Being able to garner a 33 percent market share sounds nearly impossible, especially if it must be done within a reasonably short period of time to satisfy financial constraints. Although /. users and other technology-minded people may be interested in switching utility providers, I don't think the average household is sufficiently frustrated with the local ILEC to bother with having a fiber optic line installed. Moreover, although fiber optic lines have been discussed as being necessary for video-on-demand and other expensive cable services, the cable companies are likely to provide the necessary lines. In short, I don't think enough people really care about their phone providers to demand such a service.

    A much less costly alternative would be to install some type of wireless communications network. The company would only need to install one or two of these per square mile, and with a small receiver located in households' basements, they could get phone service, cable, and internet service. Providing phone service would in fact be easier than current cellular technology, since the houses and receivers are obviously not going to move; encription could be used on the internet links, and I don't really see any reason why providing 100 channels of cable would be all that difficult. All of this from small transmitters located atop telephone polls every thousand yards or so.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Less expensive alternatives? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      encription (sic) should be provided for anything over a wireless network, period.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    2. Re:Less expensive alternatives? by GPool · · Score: 1

      A much less costly alternative would be to install some type of wireless communications network.

      Like this.

    3. Re:Less expensive alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less expensive alternatives? (Score:3)
      by PoiBoy (brian@nOsPaM.poiholdings.com) on Thursday December 06, @08:42PM (#2668639)
      (User #525770 Info)
      The article stated that the costs are such that a 33 percent market share would have to be obtained to make this financially attractive...


      Reread the article. It stated that the CURRENT solution (using the telco's line and selling phone service to the customer) required a 33% market share. The adco's solution doesn't require a 33% market share.

  13. The last mile by imrdkl · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Includes the last 75 feet. The robot in the sewer makes it sound good, but I dont believe they can make this work without trenching and traffic.

    Instead, I think they mean to run optical cable through a neighborhood, but not actually to the neighborhood. That's where the money will be, getting cable from one industrial/commercial zone to another without having to go out to the mains every time.

    1. Re:The last mile by SETY · · Score: 1

      Does the US have hydro wires? Last time I checked there we plenty. No one seems to have heard of aerial fiber. Works great looks exactly like televison cable wire. Works great in all climates. Wroks great, Works great....Etc, etc. The US seems to not install it. Most other countries do though.
      Oh well.

    2. Re:The last mile by FFFish · · Score: 2

      So you're saying you don't have a toilet in your house?

      They can run the cable right *into* your house. Drill a small hole in the outflow pipe, pull out the end of the fiber, and putty-seal it. From there, the fiber can be run through the walls. Under carpet and behind baseboards, if necessary.

      The real challenge is two-fold: they can't run a dedicated fiber to every home without clogging the sewer line (a bundle for a neighbourhood would be too big); and it's a harsh environment for any would-be fiber splitters, which would obviate the bundle problem.

      (Just struck me that you may have been thinking "storm sewers." If they are using storm sewers, then they are substantially hosed.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    3. Re:The last mile by imrdkl · · Score: 1
      Even the typical cleanout is still a good distance from the house. How many payments of 40/mo will it take to cover the cost of a single installation? Not to mention the implicit cost of a J-box, either in the sewer main (as you mention), or in series at the panel, in which case two leads have to be pulled in.

      I still think it's a ploy to get access through residential zones.

  14. How Would the Telcos Pervert This One? by mjfgates · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the existence of ADCos would be dependent on government regulation-- that's no surprise, without regulation we'd all still be paying AT&T two bucks a month to lease our phones.

    So, given regulations designed to allow ADCos to exist, how would the Baby Bells pervert such regulations to maintain their stranglehold on the phone lines in their areas? No, I don't have an answer to this question; I just know that the Bells' executives would spend plenty-o-time trying to think of ways to do it.

    1. Re:How Would the Telcos Pervert This One? by steveha · · Score: 2

      without regulation we'd all still be paying AT&T two bucks a month to lease our phones.

      I don't agree; without regulation, AT&T wouldn't have been a monopoly in the first place, and if they weren't a monopoly, we wouldn't have had to pay two bucks a month for phones.

      Everyone thought phones needed to become a monopoly, but I'm not so sure. The successful phone companies would be the ones that had good connections to other phone companies. Without a monopoly guaranteed by law, the phone companies would have no way to lock in customers.

      given regulations designed to allow ADCos to exist, how would the Baby Bells pervert such regulations to maintain their stranglehold on the phone lines in their areas?

      You are right, they would try to do that. I don't have an answer either, other than "deregulate everything and let the market sort it all out."

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    2. Re:How Would the Telcos Pervert This One? by isdnip · · Score: 2

      The old AT&T monopoly wasn't proclaimed by the government as you assume. It came in stages.

      Stage 1: In 1876, Al Bell patented the telphone. He didn't actually have the working design (Elisha Gray did), but he got his patent application in earlier and had the better patent attorney. That gave him and his backers 17 years of monopoly, as with any patent. They didn't choose to license it.

      Stage 2: In 1893, competition began. Al Strowger invented the dial. Bell Telephone bought the loading coil patent from Putin, increasing the range of the phone from a few miles to a few dozen. (No amplifiers yet.) So Bell had, by dint of a non-licensed patent, had another monopoly, on long distance. Independent telcos sprang up like weeds delivering local service, many with dial (which Bell didn't have until the 1920s, when Strowger's patents had run out).

      In 1912, Bell, already dominant, entered into an agreement with the feds. They stopped buying up independent telephone companies, and agreed to interconnect the networks for toll calls. So the industry was formed. Bell had almost all the LD and most of the local business, but small local telcos continued to operate. Later, state regulators enshrined the monopolies into rules.

      Patents gave Bell a head start. So they were able to become dominant, in a business where economy of scale matters. That's what makes it so hard to compete with them for wire: It costs money to pass houses, and if you have an 80%/20% market split, the 20% player's cost per home will be, oh, roughly four times the 80% player's, and they'll lose money.

  15. CityNet = Shitty Solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If CityNet is stringing fibre inside sewers, does that mean it's a 'shitty' solution? Thank God those cables are clad inside stainless-steel pipe.

  16. Finally! Serious bandwidth to the house... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    This would be perfect as the message-passing backbone of a distributed Beowulf cluster.

    --Patrick Bateman, Esq.

  17. Wireless ADCo? by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why wouldn't it be possible to do a lot of the last mile plumbing using wireless? If the ADCo could get access to a suitable band (G3?) at least initially they could save a lot of the physical wireing cost and they could get to a relativbely high market saturation quickly. The basestations used could be used for mobile phones etc later.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:Wireless ADCo? by krogoth · · Score: 2

      I can think of one problem with this immediately: emergencies. One advantage of this is that it can replace telcos entirely, so if you're using it you'll expect your phone to work as long as possible, even if a tornado took down a certain wireless transmitter. Wireless is broadcast anyways, so that seriously reduces it's bandwidth when there are many users.

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    2. Re:Wireless ADCo? by FlowerPotAdmin · · Score: 1

      Tornados can take down telephone poles, too... True, there's limited bandwidth when using a wireless system, but consider that the main service now (and certainly the most important for gaining market share relatively quickly) is POTS. And that doesn't require *so* much bandwidth.

      --
      -Justin
      That's enough posting for now lads, there're trolls afoot.
    3. Re:Wireless ADCo? by nadie · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of 802.11b? A little bit of equipment and you can blanket a city with 5-6Mb of bandwidth.

    4. Re:Wireless ADCo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      rain, sleet, snow, hail, tornadoes, birds, limited frequency, and insecure data transmission through open air.

      See war driving.

  18. Hardly a panacea by dfeldman · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My community has at least three ADCOs that I know of; they are all local companies who want to offer broadband. Two are running copper lines and one is running fiber. (For the record, I'm not quite willing to give up my DSL line until these guys start turning a profit.)

    One of the major problems with ADCOs is, predictably enough, running the cables. Overhead and buried cables are usually prohibitively expensive, which is why the only way the telecom/cable companies were able to afford them was with subsidies and legislated monopoly status. Therefore the companies are forced to use sewers and other undesirable underground networks to run cable. And this is where the problems begin.

    The sewers in my town are extremely old and small. There are frequently "conflicts" among the carriers when installing and maintaining these cables. Rain has proven to be an issue, as have insects and other much larger creatures. Running these cables in sewers is decidedly jury-rigged and isn't going to work out as a long-term solution.

    One of the ADCO companies was considering transmitting signals through water supply lines (!). They claimed that there was a significant amount of potential bandwidth in the water supply network. I am not sure if that ever came to pass.

    But one thing is sure: whether it be 802.11b wireless or something else, some other technology is going to be needed to replace the sewer-and-heating-duct kind of cabling that ADCOs rely on.

    df

  19. Why Snotco? by George+WIPO+Bush · · Score: -1
    THE OFFICIAL TACO-SNOTTING FAQ By The WIPO Troll, $Revision: 1.12 $

    Why have I been receiving emails from CmdrTaco, in which he seems to be speaking in some kind of code language?

    Whenever Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda gets bored (and who wouldn't, running a site like Slashdot all day), he roams through the Slashdot database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy engaging in homosexual orgies with him. How he determines this is anyone's guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, or a nick with the letter P in it, you're in trouble.
    So this time, he found you. Lucky you.
    CmdrTaco's code language is relatively easy to decipher. He prefers to speak in thinly-veiled sexual innuendo to evade the watchful (but relatively stupid) eye of Slashdot's parent corporation, VA Software. CmdrTaco's "Commander" is, of course, his penis -- a small, withered little thing that lives in his pants that only comes out in the presence of other men or at the beck and call of CmdrTaco's own right hand. His "Taco bells" are the shriveled testes that droop beneath his Commander, and his "Taco sauce" is his, well, jizz. It should be more than obvious to you now what he means when he asks you to "ring his Taco bells" or "taste his gourmet Taco sauce."
    Lastly, there is a practice he refers to as "Taco-snotting" and the more shocking "circle-snot."

    Good Lord. What is "Taco-snotting?"

    "Taco-snotting" is the term used by CmdrTaco to refer to the practice of sucking the penis of a homosexual man (or unwilling heterosexual; CmdrTaco is rumored to prefer rape), then blowing the semen out his nose onto his partner's (victim's) face and body. A long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is left on CmdrTaco's face, dribbling out of his nose and down his cheek: hence the term, "Taco-snotting."
    A "circle-snot" is a Taco-snotting circle-jerk, another practice common among the Slashdot crew. CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel, and Homos get together and Taco-snot each other with their gooey, sticky cum -- spooging their jizz-snot all over each other's faces and pasty, white bodies, until they're covered head to toe with each other's man juice. This can go on for hours. For the homosexual penetration that follows this lengthy foreplay, Roblowme is usually there to provide plenty of anal lubricant; he owns a limo service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease ready to go.
    To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie will usually join in, dressed in tight leather mock-S.S. uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The whole group then proceeds to snot each other's spunk and whip each other's pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pale, white geek bodies are exhausted and soaked in stinking sweat from the hours of passionate, homosexual revelry.

    Ewwwwww. So, can I stop receiving these emails?

    Hopefully.
    You most likely forgot to uncheck the "Willing to Taco-snot" checkbox in your account preferences. CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad, and he's probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube. There's no escaping a geek in heat, so it's probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTaco's sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on Messages, and uncheck the box next to "Willing to Taco-snot." Maybe he'll ignore you. Probably not.

    I can't stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

    If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge... oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot you, you will most likely end up tied up in his basement to be used as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a circle-snot).

    Have you ever been Taco-Snotted?

    Unfortunately, yes. I first met CmdrTaco at an Open Source Convention. He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake and some "gourmet Tacos," but when I got there, he jumped me and tied me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his "Commander" out of his pants, Mr. Taco made me suck the withered thing six times. He then performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm after sweaty, mind-numbing orgasm... then he snotted my own milky-white jizz back onto my face, into my mouth, then again on my exposed belly.
    CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, "Open Sauce" -- man sauce) buddies over to continue the twisted snotfest. Linux Torvalds raped my ass with his "monolithic kernel," and Anal Cox used his "network stack" in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice in my defenseless body. Michael was there in his leather Nazi uniform, caning my ass with a bamboo pole and ranting about "all those Censorware freaks out to get him."
    How did you finally escape, you ask? After about 16 hours of countless homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my restrained body, they all finally went to sleep on top of me, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, covered in bubbly, translucent jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with half a dozen fat, pasty-white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my flesh worked wonderfully as a lubricant; I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door. I'm just glad I survived the ordeal. These geeks had a lot of built-up spunk in their wads -- I could've easily been drowned!

    That's horrible. Does "Taco-snotting" have anything to do with CmdrTaco's "special taco"?

    No, that's a different disgusting perversion CmdrTaco indulges himself in. CmdrTaco is usually not satisfied with merely snotting your own jizz back onto your face, he most often enjoys involving his own bodily fluids in his twisted games. WeatherTroll has spent some time trying to educate the Slashdot readership about this vile practice (emphasis added):
    You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and shits on it. He then adds lettuce, jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconscious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconscious until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force-feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim.
    After the victim is unconscious, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious sexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, Taco-snotting, and getting Jon Katz involved.
    Completely different, yet no less revolting. It should be clear to you now that CmdrTaco is a very, very sick individual, as are most of the Slashdot editors.

    Does Jon Katz get involved in any of this? I thought he was a paedophile, not a homosexual.

    Actually, Jon Katz is a homosexual paedophile. He's also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile. Jon Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesn't involve himself in circle-snots. Mr. Katz usually engages in a game called " Katz juicy-douching" with his harem of little-boy slaves: a vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boy's urine (forced out of them with a pair of pliers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then squirting and slathering the goo all over himself, and the little boy's chained-up and naked bodies. If he's in the mood, he will sometimes skip refilling the enema bag and just squirt it from his ass onto his boys. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pliers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them for the rest of their lives.
    As I already said, Mr. Katz is also a zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys aren't enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goat's anus. He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goat's small, bean-like turds.

    ...Are you getting hard writing this?

    Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot?

    No, thanks. I'm already CmdrTaco's boi toi.

    ________________________________________
    READER COMMENTS

    1. Fucking hilarious too bad it didnt get a 5:Funny (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.12.02 19:01 (#2644105)

      this is good shit man

    2. Re:Taco-snotting@Home! (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Dark_Cobra87 on 2001.12.01 23:03 (#2642180)

      Oops, forgot to check that Taco-snot option...

    3. Re:Fuck Linux! Fuck him hard! (Score:-1)
      by Fecal Troll Matter on 2001.12.01 20:55 (#2641791)

      Mmmmmmm, Taco Sauce...

      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)

    4. Look (Score:-1)
      by ArchieBunker on 2001.12.01 20:19 (#2641679)

      I love trolling but this shit is getting old, fast. At least start mixing them up a little bit. How about the 'How OSM was Freed' series?
      http://www.naawp.org/

    5. Re:Congratulations! You have been WIPO'd!! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.12.01 8:37 (#2640602)

      Stop posting this! I've got hangover and Taco Snotting doesn't make me feel any better.

      I'm really glad that Taco Snotting is illegal here in Europe.

    6. Re:Snot me baby, one more time! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.30 1:01 (#2634213)

      Get a life you loser! Don't you have anything better to do than insult CmdrTaco and the gay community? We are not perverts, we are human beings just like you. So give it a rest!

    7. Re:Hello, perdida!!! Won't you snot my face tonigh (Score:-1)
      by perdida on on 2001.11.27 14:13 (#2618764)

      Shut up you asshole.

      I am not great, I am merely adequate. I live in adequacy.

    8. Go back to Russia. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.26 22:22 (#2616035)

      You weiner trool!

    9. Re:The Taco-Snotting FAQ Rides Again!! (Updated so (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.25 9:14 (#2609574)

      try to find a pic of actual "taco-snotting"! fucking funny it would be! so go to gay porn sites day in and day out until you find a man giving another man a blowjob that has jizz coming out of his nose and mouth. by the way, keep up the good work

    10. Re:Snotting another first!! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.23 12:18 (#2603370)

      WIPO, this is getting waaaay old, either drop it or revise it.... there've been no updates for days now...

      CmdrTaco

    11. Re:It's Taco SPAM!!! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.22 17:28 (#2600815)

      A truly excellent and very humourous troll indeed!
      However...

      To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie often join in, dressed in black Gestapo uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves.

      Black GeStaPo uniforms? The GeStaPo (Geheime Staatspolizei - Secret State Police) wore civilian clothes (although there are reports on them occasionally using Allgemeine SS uniforms in occupied territories).

      I seriously doubt that perverted individuals like CmdrTaco et al would have the good taste to ever wear the outstandingly beautiful black Waffen SS uniforms! Please update the FAQ accordingly.

      • Re:It's Taco SPAM!!! (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.23 4:06 (#2602610)

        Actually, it appears you are both wrong!! Ah ha!! I think our boy WIPO was thinking of the Allgemeine SS uniforms. Waffen SS were grey.

    12. Re:Microsoft's Taco-Snotting Connection (Score:-1, Troll)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.21 4:49 (#2594325)

      oh yeah, you say you have masturbated only 2 times to this post. well, by the time it takes for me to get through reading it, i usually end up masturbated 5 to 6 times, 10 to 12 if i have the goatse.cx homepage loaded up and am looking at it side by side with the slashdot page. my keyboard, hands, mouse, monitor, the underside of my desk and around the floor under my desk are cum soaked and sticky with the man smell i know and love.

    13. Re:Microsoft's Taco-Snotting Connection (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.21 4:41 (#2594311)

      for version 2 you should make a total re-write of the cod...errr...text and add some details about cmdrtaco and the homo-gang's happenings with their coworkers (osdn?) and all of the gay revelry they enjoy and promote. by the way, did i just see cmdrtaco on television promoting the nax hair removal system? i guess after using vaseline in and around his ass he grew quite a ponytail and it had to be removed somehow...ouch!

    14. Re:Microsoft's Taco-Snotting Connection (Score:-1, Troll)
      by TRoLLaXoR on 2001.11.21 3:59 (#2594191)

      WIPO, do you notice how few comments you get for anything you write/post/spam nowadays?

      -Trollaxor

    15. Jon-Katz docking (Score:-1)
      by sales_worldwide on 2001.11.20 11:53 (#2588488)

      You forgot to mention Jon Katz's "docking" games, where he places his chopper head to head with another chap, and rolls the other guys foreskin over his own circumcised end ("docking"), providing him with fantasies of actually having his own forskin ...
      "Making linux GPL was the best thing I ever did" - Torvalds. I'd hate to see the worst thing...

    16. Re:Snotting a first! (Score:-1)
      by Fucky the troll on 2001.11.20 11:28 (#2588446)

      Woah! When did the WIPO troll get freed? And how the fuck did I miss it?

      Excellent FP, sir.

      This is a sig virus. Please put me in your sig

    17. Re:Snotting a first! (Score:-1, Troll)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.20 11:04 (#2588407)

      omg that is crapflooding material if i ever saw it!!!!!! and u got a first post!!!! whoot to the wipo troll!!!

    18. GW, please.... (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.19 9:03 (#2583756)

      GW...you know we love every hair on your 27 acre ass... and I, for one, would never do anything untowards your graceful demeanor. And you probably have several friends that would love to help you do the bear dance all over my face if I so much as spelled your name wrong. And you know I'd defend your Constitutional right to defame God in heaven. I'd even help fund your education, should you ever decide to take that route. Hell, I'd buy you a tall tepid bear-whiz beer if you were here with me, right now!

      But. ...if you can't find another topic, I'm gonna step over your dead mother's grave and kick your assuredly anesthetitized butt clear across the playground.

      Now go stick your shaved head back down inside the woman's toilet, and just to show there's no hard feelings, I'll jump in the tow-truck and drive right over to help you pull it right out...ok?

      thanks

    19. Re:Help me Taco-Snotters!! (Score:-1)
      by mark knopfler 69 on 2001.11.19 8:25 (#2583695)

      I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU SIR. FOR ONE THING, THE E-MAIL FROM CMDRTACO DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH GRAMMATICAL AND SPELLING MISTAKES. Let's be realistic here, CmdrTaco usually types with one hand, and since he is shaking from jacking off his aim on the keyboard isn't too good. Those e-mails were a little too well written. Sorry boy, you'll have to do better.

    20. Re: What the hell is "taco snotting"? (Score:-1)
      by WeatherTroll on 2001.11.19 8:14 (#2583667)

      You should update this to say VA Software instead of VA Linux.

    21. YOU ARE WINNER (Score:1)
      by smackmonkey on 2001.11.19 7:06 (#2583510)

      Crackhead moderators: this is +5, Hilarious material.

      --
      CNN declares War on Islam!
      Left-wing America declares War on its Civil Liberties!

    22. Re:On Taco-Snotting 1.9 (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.19 5:40 (#2583336)

      This was funny the first 100 times. Now it is getting boring!

    23. Digusting and Shameful (Score:-1)
      by egg troll on 2001.11.18 22:27 (#2582054)

      Having masturbated *twice* to this post, I'm still incredibly aroused! Come over for a Taco Snot. I'll be wearing my crotchless Clifford the Big Red Dog outfit!!

      For more info check out this /. article

    24. IMPROVE THE FAQ (Score:-1, Flamebait)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.18 12:03 (#2580822)

      add more links to goatse and to cowboineal's site to make it better. a link to rotten.com would be nice too

      • Re:IMPROVE THE FAQ (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.18 12:18 (#2580832)

        and a link to michael's site and to jon katz's site if he has one and homo's site. i dont know what else to say. maybe a few links to phallic.org they have nice penis pictures! a link to the planet quake site or whatever. really make the reader feel this faq really answers their questions. oh yeah, and when you talk about cmdrtaco snotting you, say he brought you to "orgasm after sweaty orgasm". describe it more is all i'm saying. and use more italics and bolding! and when you talk about jon katz shitting or whatever have a link to fecal japan on rotten.com

        other wise a great job wipo troll! keep up the good work!

    25. Re:CmdrTaco's filthy secret! (Score:-1)
      by Wil Wheaton on 2001.11.18 6:41 (#2580438)

      Hi. Let's be buddies.. butt buddies.
      --
      WIL WHEATON DOT NET

    26. WIPO speaks the truth (Score:-1)
      by dead_puppy on 2001.11.18 5:33 (#2580342)

      Here is an e-mail I received a week ago:

      From: malda@slashdot.org
      To: puppy_dead@hotmail.com
      Subject: were where you last friday? :(

      I thought we where supposed to meet at Backdoor's at 8-ish, sugar-lips? You could've at least told me that you could'nt make it! I was even in my favorite pink skirt for you, honey-cup... next time, you could be more considarite and tell me you cant come... bastard.

      --
      CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org)
      You finding Ling-Ling's head?

    27. Taco snotting is WRONG!!! (Score:-1)
      by Big_Ass_Spork on 2001.11.18 4:53 (#2580300)

      I do it wrong

      Laying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love. My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours. My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain. She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl. She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.

      Massaging my nutsack she....

      WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!!!!

      Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass. [goatse.cx]

      "OH BIG ASS SPORK!! Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good. DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!! Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!"

      "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!"

      I DO IT WRONG!!!!

      ---
      All your Sporks are belong to Big_Ass_Spork! What you say?! All your Sporks are belo... forget it...

    28. Rob Malda Dead at age 25! (Score:-1)
      by j0nkatz on 2001.11.17 22:54 (#2579596)

      I just heard some sad news on the radio -- famous queerbait Rob Malda was found dead in his Holland home this morning. The details were a bit hazy, but it seems that he drowned in jizz while Taco Snotting his friend Hemos. I'm sure everyone in the /. community will miss him -- even if you didn't enjoy his queer antics and boring ass website, there's no denying his contributions to the homosesual cultural development, particularly in the areas of Taco snotting. Truly an American icon.

      I wanna Open Source sex so it won't be worth a shit either.

    29. TACO-SNOTTING is really Donkey-Punching (Score:-1, Troll)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.15 6:38 (#2567601)

      No no no, the correct term for that is "donkey-punch". I have eye-witnessed this amazing eye-popping event demonstrated on unsuspecting hose-monsters by my frat brothers in the past.. . :-)

    30. Re:the effect of knowlege laws... (Score:1)
      by AbsoluteRelativity on 2001.11.15 5:31 (#2567457)

      The WIPO Troll
      Slashdot and the Karma Lottery - News for uber monkeys, by uber monkeys.

    31. Re:Taco-Snotting (Score:-1, Troll)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.13 9:27 (#2557632)

      Oh, man that's just sick !

    32. HOW DO I GET AN ANONYMOUS PROXY? (Score:-1, Troll)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.13 9:03 (#2557604)

      TELL ME WHERE I CAN GET AN ANONYMOUS proxy please WIPO Troll. Maybe later i will join you in a snotting at my place. ;P

    33. Re:Taco-Snottage!?!?!? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by vikool on 2001.11.13 7:43 (#2557495)

      what is this bull shit,i feel offened that some people feel so so senseless to post stuff like these esp when such a tragic incident has occured

    34. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1)
      by I.T.R.A.R.K. on 2001.11.11 22:38 (#2551890)

      Where the fuck do I sign up?!

      - I throw rocks at retarded kids

      "Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."

    35. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1, Troll)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 21:53 (#2551753)

      this shit is hilarious..keep up the good work.

    36. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by rockwood on 2001.11.11 21:49 (#2551746)

      OMG! That is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard! WHo in their right mind would sit down and waste the time to construct such a replusive story. I guess I'll be skipping lunch and dinner today.. and possibly tomorrow also. The game doesn't affect reality. Reality affects the game.

    37. Re:Ban this! It's disgusting!! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 14:43 (#2550701)

      dude, this is crap-flood material if i ever saw it.
      duuuuuuuuudddddddddddddeeeeeeeee.

    38. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Flamebait)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 8:16 (#2550266)

      horny_rob_6969@hotmail.com

      Ah, so that's what the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.horny-rob newsgroup is about!

    39. MOD THIS UP PLEASE!!! (Score:-1)
      by egg troll on 2001.11.11 5:34 (#2550024)

      +5, Arousing

      For more info check out this /. article

    40. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 4:39 (#2549891)

      WINNER>

    41. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 4:37 (#2549887)

      I love you. Why do you use your bitchslapped account, rather than signing up for a new account to post at +1 before getting bitchslapped by the censors here? I guess I should speak for myself, but I don't want to log out and lose all my slashdot customization properties, nor do I want to lose my 50 karma yet.

    42. Re:On Taco-Snotting (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.09 9:19 (#2542412)

      you fucking rock! right down to the expanded cvs id!

      WIPO trolls > linux

    ________________________________________

    $Id: tacosnotting.html,v 1.12 2001/12/02 20:07:02 wipo Exp $
    --

    J. Wipo Troll, Esq.
    Crapflooder Associates
    Slashdot.org

  20. Frothy Piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    haha fag0ts, i get frist pizzzost, haha u losers suk bad

  21. Re:Interesting...Liked the engineering economics by darkPHi3er · · Score: 4, Interesting

    BUT, even the SFGate article says"

    "The reasons for that, boiled down, revolve around the costs involved in small telecom companies trying to do too many things all at once."

    i haven't read the study in depth yet, but looking at the TOC and skimming the section heads, they seem to ignore a POLITICAL reality....

    The Telcos ***DON'T WANT*** to solve the LastMileProblem.

    The Telcos had, up until the construction of the fiber backbone, ARPANET and courts' decision that made telcos open the backbone up to competitors, a REALLY SWEET business model

    strictly "Cost Plus, Plus" and very cozy relationships with their Fed/State regulators, many of whom were telco execs doing the "Public Service" tour of duty...which made the telco business a "name your own rates" kinda business

    the more broadband deployed, the less value switched circuits have, and the more value packets acquire

    the Telcos would much rather sell analog switched, retail priced voice services (where they created the business model and still control it), than...

    ...packet based, circuit-less (or virtual circuits, if you prefer) communications, where they cannot charge per packet and have to share their packet revenues with broadband providers...

    i'm routing, uh, rooting, for the ADCOs, but, if you will recall, CLEC's were also supposed to solve at least part of the problem, and before them the RBOC's (soon to be "The RBOC or So")were going to wire the "bridge to the future"...

    as a engineer geek, it sounds to me like the ADCOs can solve acutally solve the deployment of high speed fiber to the businesses and homes in the local loop (though you'll probably end up with a very limited number of very big ADCOs, economies of scale being very real)....

    but, what about a business model that will allow broadband providers to survive w/o the consumer being charged "per packet" (like Docomo) or "per bandwidth" like fractional T?

    Switched circuits are wasting assets, telcos and analog voice are doomed businesses,BUT...

    ..so far, no successful new business model has emerged to replace them

    ...

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  22. Please, SOMEONE solve the last mile by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    I don't care if its stationary wireless, dedicated fiber digging, or sewer cable, just someone get the lead out and solve this problem.

    Simply put, a huge amount of talent, infrastructure, and capacity on the backbone is just waiting for someone to open up the pipes and start getting massive quantities of data to consumers. Interactive TV, P2P that actually works, telepresences, etc etc, none of it can bring us out of the 1996 web until bandwidth to each dwelling increases vastly.

    1. Re:Please, SOMEONE solve the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can solve TLMP: It's a thing called "conduit." Every building should have a conduit leading into each residence that can carry multiple *and* new kinds of wire. This will enable easy installation of the new wires. What a freaking concept.

      I must be a genius.

  23. Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    just wanted to let you, the slashdot-reading fag, know that the world would be a much better place if you just killed yourself right now. Thanks.

  24. Why .DOC? by scorcherer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Posting a link to an EVIL M$ .DOCument on the Slashdot branch of the Holy Church of the Penguin? WHat is this world coming to?

    --

    --
    The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.

  25. Trivial by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    In most homes the line should be embedded in an accessible location, often easy to snag from under the concrete or just under the top soil itself.

    Or, they could simply lay a new cable and leave the old one buried.

  26. Public Utility? by thunk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone besides me think that making all data lines a public utility would be such a bad idea? Our roads are a public utility. Why not make our data the same?

    I'm not advocating that the government-run everything. I think we all know that would be a nightmare for more reasons than one. If the government owns the cable, then there's nothing keeping different data service companies from using portions of it. This could work from the big pipes, all the way down to the last mile. On the backbones, companies would rent out X number of fibers, and Y amount of floor space wherever said fibres meet. The last mile would probably take a while longer to get set, but the same principle would suffice. Each local unit (neighborhood, apt building, etc) gets one of those metal boxes you see sitting around. The data companies just get to rent out space inside of those, to switch from the fiber to the copper that runs to your home/apartment.

    No monopolies. Fair competition. And by leaving the operation to the data corps, the existing players still get to stay in the game. I'm sure someone here can come up with something, but I can find no reason why having the government own the physical layer only would be a bad thing. I realize that there is little chance that the telco lobbyists would let an Idea like this fly, but hey... I guy can dream of the perfect net access can't he?

    1. Re:Public Utility? by Suit · · Score: 1
      Our local ADCo is partially owned by the utility company which is, in turn, partially owned by the territory government.

      This is a good model for a network, with fibre to the curb and VDSL to the residence. Technology and some degree of public ownership does not seem to be enough to succeed though. The main shareholders were recently asked to kick in further capital to keep the firm afloat.

      The main problem appears to be content. Being an "open" network, where all providers are welcome, as opposed to the competitors HFC "closed" networks, providers (other than the BBC) appear to be reluctant to put their IP on the line.

      It seems that content providers are afraid of having to compete against each other. They much prefer the tried-and-true closed model with their captive audiences. If you buy the Telstra/Optus cable you must watch their cable allies.....

      --
      Life is just a bowl of All Bran - Small Faces
    2. Re:Public Utility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been done. The city of Ashland, Oregon has installed a fiber network all over the city. The city owns the network and also sells cable TV service over it, and independent ISPs sell net access. Result, cable internet around $20-$25/month. No reason to go dialup.

      http://www.ashlandfiber.net/

    3. Re:Public Utility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You'll have a hard time wresting that resource away from the telcos' cold, dead hands.

      A novel idea though. This would be a great way to move to an all-data network. Plus it would let local communities decide how important net access is to them. Some counties spend lots of money keeping their roads new and free of potholes. Others may decide to solve their traffic problems by having their citizens telecommute!

      How exactly would the different providers/tiers interact? Would it pan out to a tiered approach, where you had some companies handling the backbone traffic, and others handling local traffic... buying and selling bandwidth to each other? In that case we would need regulations to keep any one company from buying too much of a certain pipe, hence monopolizing data flow to a certain area.

      If companies instead bought slices of the entire picture, where would interaction between companies happen? Do we have regulations that force DataDelivery(tm) to talk to BitBoys(tm) at the local level, or would we still have to deal with unecessary ping times as data travels to my next-door neighbor's house on a 300-mile, 14hop trip? Would the "Data Corps" have any economic incentive to spend time and resources setting up connections with peers at multiple levels?

      Interesting concept, but realistically it'll never happen.

    4. Re:Public Utility? by regen · · Score: 2
      No need to do this with the long haul lines, only with the "last mile". If you want a long haul line (e.g. T-1 circuit from NYC to Chicago) You have many player that will be happy to sell (lease really) you the circuit, e.g. AT&T, Sprint, Qwest, etc... But to use any of them you need to get a local loop (circuit between you and the CO) and a back haul circuit (circuit between CO and IXC) to the IXC's closest POP.

      What really needs to be done is that we need break the ILEC's apart. One company owns local loop physical plant. They do not own any switch and are legally barred from doing anything except leasing physical point to point circuits. e.g. They can lease you a copper pair from your house to the CO. They can also lease space in the CO. They cannot offer any other services. We'll call this company the LineCo. The LineCo is a classically regulated monopoly, their profits are limited to a fixed percentage of investment. (i.e. they install $100 of new cable, they can only make a profit of $15 on this cable.) This gives LineCo a reason to constantly upgrade and expand their physical plant (out of room at the CO is no longer a problem since , if they build a new addition to the CO they can make more money)

      The rest of the telco becomes a private company which leases space in the CO from the first company. The relationship between the two companies is regulated like the relationship was regulated between AT&T and the RBOCs. (We will refer to this company at the ILEC)

      Other providers (CLECs, IXCs, Cable companies) can lease space from LineCo just like the ILEC. LineCo has no benefit from making facilities availble to the ILEC and not the CLEC, LineCo profit is the same. In fact LineCo should try and get as many different providers into each CO since this will cause the CO to need expansion and allow LineCo to make more money.

      ILEC will lose their special status which allows them to have a limited monopoly since that would be transfered to LineCo.

      This will give true competition in the local circuit market.

      --
      The Economics of Website Security
    5. Re:Public Utility? by thunk1 · · Score: 1

      Possible solution to your last point... make the local wires cheaper to lease than the big pipes. That way it is in the company's best interest to route as much traffic as possible at the local level.

      Another thought... This would definitely change the game for network caching, if the Data providers could install more that just switches in the big metal boxes. Instead of trying to build out a massive nation/world wide network, simply target a local community, selling to them the idea that paying a bit extra for a caching option would greatly improve their connectivity. It would create the potential for video on demand networks to become practical, perhaps even as the main content distribution system. Although, some would argue that the masses don't really want video on demand. Ramble, ramble...

      All I know, is that I would love to have ubiquitous data access throughout my house. I really think government owned lines could expediate that process. Until all the different pipes get unified into one solid connection, I can't have my IP phones and net controlled toasters. C'mon... you know you want a 2324 compliant coffee pot integrated into your automated home.

  27. WOW by mambodeath · · Score: 1

    WideOpenWest is already laying wire here in Colorado and they claim on their site that some portions of Denver are ready for service...

    --
    if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
  28. Forget the last mile, start with the last 100 yard by hughk · · Score: 2
    It is expensive and legally problematic to put cables anywhere over public property.

    Perhaps another approach is to look at large building projects (i.e., multiple buildings such as major office complexes and housing developments) and ensuring that they have dark fibre already installed. Once the last few hundred yards are covered to a suitable trunk then the attachment cost is minimised.

    Existing buildings are another issue, but just think if at least newer projects were 'prewired'. Note that this isn't much different to the current organisation of utilities, we just say that combined cable/phone/high-speed data is just another bit of plumbing.

    This is where we should be starting, if the new building projects are prewired then that reduces the problem size.

    With existing buildings, there are problems that depend upon the population density and thus the number of possible subscribers. Having robots crawl around sewers or air-blowing fibre down pipes isn't a major issue. Getting the connection to the buildings is.

    There are a lot of benefits to having to deal with a single company for access, but I'm still not clear how the costs can be bundled or competition effectively managed. Would the access companied share infrastructure, for example?

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  29. This sounds like it could be very interesting... by krogoth · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure if they're all doing it, but in the article they mention using fiber optic cables, which would be an obvious advantage over copper. Aside from the competition aspect, I wonder if this will allow faster advancement in other areas, such as the speeds of home connections? These ADCos could allow cheaper upgrades (then again, upgrading any significant length of fiber must cost a lot in consumer terms, just for the price of the cabling).

    --

    They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
  30. Did anyone notice the anti-republican message? by Mr.+X · · Score: 1

    I thought it was almost funny how the writer decided to slam a completely unreleated tax-cut in a story about telecom. SFGate.. no wonder. In fact, ADCOs would provide a much more effective economic stimulus, particularly in Silicon Valley, than anything else now being considered, including the incredibly misguided huge corporate tax rebates recently approved by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. Unlike corporate tax rebates, which merely reward companies for being big, fixing the last-mile glitch would actually do something real to restore economic growth in the tech sector, especially at firms working to develop new broadband-related products, which include hardware, software and services.

    1. Re:Did anyone notice the anti-republican message? by PoiBoy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw that paragraph and had to reread it to see if I could figure out what tax cuts have to do with ADCo's. I couldn't. It's a rather glaring example of a liberal journalist imposing his views on an otherwise informative article.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  31. A truly workable solution? by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 2

    I don't think the problem is only "trying to do too much at once"; it's also "building a huge network costs a ton of money". And while there is the example of the robots stringing fiber in pre-dug tunnels, that's a VERY unique case that isn't possible elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, I'd guess that the cost of building one's own network is so high that you HAVE to provide a wide range of services because you can't build enough revenue off a single product.

    I agree that doing it all on one's own is the best way to go -- MCI (and later, Sprint) are doing ok because they have their own networks and don't just sell time from AT& to their long-distance customers -- but the costs are still probably way too high to justify it anytime soon. You'd need a much higher demand for service to make it feasible.

  32. Anyone can solve the problem... by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    The next problem is that in any given city block, there is NO ONE who will pay what it will cost to deliver it. Depending on the density of people who will pay for the service and the number of clues they have, you might be able to swing service for between $50 and $200 a month. If it's just one person paying, it could go as high as $1000 to $1600 a month. Solving the last mile problem is easy. Solving it affordably is what's such a pain in the ass.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  33. Fortune cookie say today... by Fortune+Master · · Score: 1

    You will worry about the last mile while the other 5,000 go bankrupt and dark.

    --
    ...in bed.
  34. Microsoft to Provide Virus Support by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Overheard at a M$ presentation today: Microsoft to provide free support with virus problems associated with Microsoft products.

    Call 866-PCSafety (866-727-2338) or visit here Phone excerpt: "Welcome to Microsoft Technical Support...this number has been established to assist customers with virus-related issues." Gaah! Still calling them issues?? I suppose they could have renamed M$-supported viruses to something like Microsoft Covert Replicating Autonomous Processes.

  35. Yes, but for businesses, there are ways around it by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    You can use the Cisco net phone for starts. As soon as you take the clients off of the circuit and on to the net, the telcos have to play ball.

    That said, you are right, and it will be a long long time before packet switched networks carry a majority of voice traffic.

    Unfortunately, as Business Week pointed out a few months ago, the telco/government apparatus simply doesn't favro change or progress and likely it will take substantial public sector wrangling to open up this market again.

  36. Re:Forget the last mile, start with the last 100 y by robwills · · Score: 1

    Power distribution utilities already have the access they need to get *any* cable into your home.

    What you will get from your local power utility is 'blown' fiber into your meter box. From there you need a bridge... run wireless or cat5 or even power line.

    Problem solved ! There are trials working in Australia already !

  37. opinion.. by Xzzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's pretty obvious that the main stumbling block is getting new connections into houses. Houses are traditionally built with two wire based connections; power and phone. In the past couple decades it's included cable, which is another market that's developing (developed?) a strong monopoly over their local domains.

    Remember when cable started coming in back in the 80's? They had to send trucks down every road in every neighborhood burying a cable to get into your building.

    That's obviously what these guys are doing, but doing it by loopholing themselves around regulations to cut some of the costs.

    I see these "ADCo's" going through a struggling uphill climb, again, a lot like cable companies did twenty years ago. Robots and sewer lines are nice, but I think they'd be much better served to just duplicate the cable company business model instead of looking for instant gratification type solutions, because it's proven to work.

    IMO, when construction companies start realizing that people need more than three wires into a house, they'll start laying fiber under neighborhoods and selling it to local companies. Now *that* would be a moneymaker; laying extra lines would be dirt cheap if you already have the ground torn up.

    1. Re:opinion.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Laying extra lines is stupid. Very stupid.

      Laying conduit is smart. Very smart.

    2. Re:opinion.. by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Mod up the parent! Some clueless moderator gave it "-1 offtopic"! It's right on topic and it's a worthwhile contribution. I can't judge if counduit without the extra lines will save money, but the idea is worth considering and definitely on topic.

      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for one day. Teach him how to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  38. The fix is less competition, not more! by bourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, at least someone is trying to solve the problem, but this isn't the way. Why? Because, as everyone here has pointed out, running cable is so expensive that it has to be subsidized. That's not the sort of environment where competition thrives.

    The correct fix is to have a monopoly on cable distribution. One that isn't tied hip and hoof with voice/data/anything carriers. One that runs cables and manages access to the CO for all the carriers, be they ILEC or CLEC. No more games, no more favoritism.

    The groundwork is there. The cable-laying portion of the ILECs has always subsidized with Universal Service Fees. We the people own a good portion of that copper and fiber! By now, anybody who hasn't figured out that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a failure is dead or heavily subsidized by the ILECs, so let'd go back, do it right, and rip the physical infrastructure out of the hands of the ILECs.

    1. Re:The fix is less competition, not more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Laying cable is stupid. Very stupid.

      Laying conduit is smart. Very smart.

  39. The True Potential by Lunastorm · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The problem is that the apps that people use that need broadband are being killed, such as napster and other file sharing. Streaming video still works on a modem because noone has done the streaming movie (as in video rental store) idea yet which would certainly require broadband even with better technology. I'd say that 75% at least of people using the internet are perfectly happy with their 5k per second max bandwidth which is more than enough for email, web browsing and chat. Again, this just hurts the rest of us who would like to be able to go faster because we understand (and would actually utilize) the potential.

    --
    You die too easily.
  40. Why broadband will be a long time coming by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MS and Intel gave us enormous improvements in their products over time in order to sell us upgrades. Telcos and Cable companies, who sell you a subscription service, have substantially less incentive to improve their product. Better to charge you the same for the same old service, and keep what profits they can from the underlying semiconductor/optic cost drops.

    I fear that both these players are going to stick with 1 Megabitish services for a long long time. Video that fills my screen still seems a decade away.

    If telcos gave you sufficient bandwidth to the last mile, they'd lose their existing revenue model to VoIP/Microsoft.

    If cable companies gave you sufficient bandwidth to the last mile, they'd lose their control over video distribution channels to the surf-anywhere web.

    I think broadband will be accessible for nearly anyone who wants it, and at cheaper prices than today (i.e. $20/mo, not $50). But I'm not convinced the bandwidth is going to start going up at Moore's law rates of the underlying semiconductor/optic technology improvements. Not even close. The geographic monopolies are too strong, and the benefits of cable/telco collusion are too profitable for them to not keep us on the leash of slow improvements.

    --LP

  41. Last mile is a toughy by janolder · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In good ol' Germany, the last mile is open to competitors - in theory. In practice, the government sanctioned ex-monopolist (German Telecom) is able to prevent any intrusion into its highly profitable nickle and dime business. They make switching difficult, they play for time, they make impossible offers to share their network, etc. It speaks volumes that GT would not be profitable without the local call charges they amass every year - about 5 billion USD, if memory serves.

    According to a heise article, 60% of German customers have access to alternative local loop providers. However, 98% are still served by GT.

    Sadly, nothing much will change anytime soon. The government still holds a huge percentage of GT's stock. If their monopoly were broken, the stock would deflate like Enron's and that windfall of cash could not be spent on securing the next election by way of pork.

  42. Forget all about wires and fibre ... by iamnetboy · · Score: 1

    Here's a solution for you: do that last mile over a highspeed wireless link. Then, the CLEC's can circumvent the ILEC's for the last mile. Of course, they still need to interface into the existing PSTN to carry local calls. For a big enough CLEC, you can even be your own IXC in a multi-city deployment.

    Sounds unrealistic, or likely to be limited to low bandwidth, low coverage, and low density? They claim to doing it over at SOMA. Take a peek.

  43. Forget Installation -- it's the maintenance by Bookwyrm · · Score: 2

    Getting a last mile connection laid is only part of the problem. In theory, it would be a one time issue and be finished with. The larger issue is the maintenance and operational costs that have to be paid on an ongoing basis to keep the system working.

    Working out how to get the connection to the house is a technology problem, keeping the connection working is a service problem. Most people are going to be interested in buying services, not (just) technology.

  44. just one number/word by paranoic · · Score: 1

    802.11b (or it's descendants)

  45. I need help or sleep... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    when I saw this:
    which uses state-of-the-art robots to crawl through sewers to lay fiber-optic lines.

    All I could think was:
    'I need that kind of "crappy" connection'
    'robots on a high fiber diet'
    'gives a new meaning to "laying cable"'
    I'm warped because I picture a robot in the sewers playing "this little light of mine.mp3" over an internal speaker down in the sewer.

    Seriously, who do I have to ki^H^H help to get these damn cable idiots some competition?

    Can you tell? think about 1M/s up and down for 20 bucks a month... MMMmmmm.

    Moose

    .

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    1. Re:I need help or sleep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I always thought the easiest way to do it was for everyone to write their address on a ping-pong ball, tie a fiber optic cable to it, and flush it... reeling out cable as needed.

      Eventually, the ping-pong balls should come out at some central point... just connect up the cables to a hub of some sort, and you're all wired up.

      Of course, you have to sit in the bathroom to use the internet ;-(

  46. You can't beat a government mandated monopoly by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    Local telco's and cables are, almost everywhere, mandated (and regulated) as local monopoly providers. No one is allowed to compete.

    Those few places I've heard of with no cable monopoly have lower cable access prices, and better service. Funny thing, that.

    Where, if anywhere, is the local telephone service unregulated?

    I'm serious. Please post any examples.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  47. Being anti-Republican doesn't make it false... by Lurkingrue · · Score: 1

    ...nor strictly irrelevant. In fact, it think it was quite apropos -- the author was pointing out that, if stupid and expensive laws that benefit a few rich people can get passed in the name of "economic stimulus", a less-expensive and more egalitarian and more effective law should be able to be passed for the same reason.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    1. Re:Being anti-Republican doesn't make it false... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      what law? the article wasn't even about a new law, just a new type of company.

    2. Re:Being anti-Republican doesn't make it false... by jgardn · · Score: 1

      As everyone knows, the people who sign your paycheck are the rich you hate so much. If the rich get to keep more of *their* money (which us poor seem more than happy to steal!), maybe they will give you a raise.

      Maybe one of them will decide that it's time to start investing money in *you* and the other nerds in this world, and perhaps a bright one will think that this is a good idea and put his money behind it.

      Think about that for a moment. Maybe you'll look at the rich in a different light, and realize that without them and their *evil* wealth, we would be digging potatoes out of the frozen ground, or worse yet, starving.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    3. Re:Being anti-Republican doesn't make it false... by Lurkingrue · · Score: 1

      The rich don't sign my paycheck -- I actually charge them for services. As for your other comments, I'm a doctor (almost), so I'm hardly a "nerd" who's interested in "investment" from the feudal-lord-gazillionaries that the USian government seems hell-bent on creating and supporting. And, personally, I don't see how your stawman about me "hating the rich" is accurate or relevant, since I'd gladly be rich myself.

      Wealth isn't evil, but it doesn't take a genius to know that to help the greatest number of people you shouldn't be giving huge sums to a very small number of people who don't need it, don't deserve it, and certainly won't be pumping it back into the economy -- "trickle-down" bullshit be damned.

    4. Re:Being anti-Republican doesn't make it false... by Lurkingrue · · Score: 1

      You're right -- the author was, I suppose, pointing out how something like this new form of service provider (in a general sense of the term) could do more to stimulate the (local, Sili-Valley) economy than a poorly-thought-out corporate rebate.

      My bad for writing faster than I was thinking.

  48. GAH! Plagiarism! MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This post is a blatant ripoff of an earlier post to the same article. Please mod down!

  49. Soma Networks by Nurey · · Score: 1

    The research appears to have missed one "last-mile" company: Soma Networks.

  50. Why the Phoenix Center's timing is flawed by phillct · · Score: 1
    After reading through some comments here and battling my own bias, a desire for a better telecom infrastructure, I'm reluctantly compelled to resort to boring realism.

    As much as I'd like to believe that there IS a solution right now to the telecoms' monopolistic business model, I remain unconvinced that new networks in even the majority of urban areas are financially viable. Why?
    1. The only problem associated with the "Last Mile Problem" would be created in trying to solve it too quickly.
      • We, especially those of us who are Americans, believe that we're entitled to a choice every time we spend money. We are, however the choice may not be between a variety of suppliers, it may be a choice between yes and no. A few examples... Cable TV is finally available to most of us from two different carriers (Echostar/DirecTV and the local fiber/cable company). When cable was first introduced, however, you could either buy cable or not buy cable. You may have been consistently pissed off at your cable company, but you either dealt with it or went back to your antenna. The first settlers in any rural area in America probably only had one store in which to buy their household goods (I'll cite Little House on the Prairie as evidence). Now they have two choices, Walmart and KMart (a little joke). The point is, the heart of capitalism is based on YES or NO, not WHERE, although when markets reach a point of saturation, that's a nice side effect. With most new goods or services, the first decision customers make is either YES or NO. When the demand is great enough to motivate another supplier to snatch a piece of the profits in a given market, the effect is usually a subtle, yet beneficial drop in price and elevation in service to the consumer. Right now, broadband internet and other relatively new telecom-based services are still in the YES or NO phase, and may be for some time. Individuals and businesses won't switch other telecommunications services (like telephone and FAX) to a startup for a few dollars savings.
      • Having said that, Cable internet is expanding, is affordable, is not run by the local telco in most cases, and is a suitable introductory broadband product for the average home customer. It can also be argued that in most places cable is not available, either demand is not substantial, or the cost to run the line is too high. Believe me, the timing of the release of this report also has a lot to do with the chaos surrounding Excite@Home, which, I might add, is only temporary (cable offerings will shift management, not disappear). See #3, below.
      In other words, I don't view the "Last Mile Problem" as one that can be solved any time soon, and we can't blame the problem on the telcos, even if they have made DSL installation less than ideal.
    2. The climate for alternative networks hasn't gotten any better since 1996.
      • Hal Plotkin, author of the SF Gate story, does a fine job of summarizing the report's economic determination of why deregulation in 1996 hasn't worked in creating competition. The reasons, he summarizes are that 1) inital costs are so high that large market shares in a given area must be achieved, and 2) the variety of services, and the burden of marketing and providing all of them, place an unsurpassable strain on any competitor. The Phoenix Center is essentially arguing that by skipping #2 as a wholesaler, they can achieve #1. The problem is that *someone* has to market the various services in order to sell enough bandwidth, perhaps the so-called CLECs. Obviously the wholesaler relies on the success of its customers to succeed, and I'm not sure any CLECs will succeed in carrying out #2 now or soon, even without worrying about laying down the cable. The incumbent LECs have been around forever, and it won't be easy to encourage the majority of people to switch (we all need to remember that when it comes to this topic, we're definitely not part of the majority).
      • We've seen a lot of good ideas fail in the past five years. In fact, a lot of them have been based on broadband bandwidth. A lot of these ideas could work, but were attempted ahead of their time. It's normal for us (especially those of us interested in technology) to be anxious and impatient when it comes to growth. There were a lot of people who had to wait a decade for cable TV, and another decade for a competitor. The problem is that our economy is complex, labor is expensive, and as long as the availability of capital is finite, growth in high tech areas will have to be deliberate and slow.
    3. The Phoenix Center, no doubt, endeavored to find "the best way to compete" with telcos, not to find out "whether to compete" with telcos. I'm sure a lot of time, effort, and mathematics went into this report. The problem is that, as Mr. Plotkin notes, the CEO of the most notable potential ADCO is on the board at the Phoenix Center. We're obviously reading a key piece of research that was spawned to help companies like CityNet find the substantial financing required to start grabbing small pieces of the telecommunications market. Perhaps they were also hoping the high profile collapse of Excite@Home would help corroborate the myth that there are easily serviceable groups of people out there who are ready to pay for broadband, but can't get it. Unfortunately, I doubt any VC firm will be writing a check after reading this report, unless of course the year is 2011 instead of 2001. On that note, however, this report is probably an accurate prediction of a more distant future
    I actually think the report will turn out to be accurate in how the telecommunications market is gradually opened. Perhaps in the near future we'll see some alternative sources of bandwidth in highly concentrated regions, but I think it will be a very long time until most of us will be able to choose where we buy our bandwidth. One of the side effects of the telecommunications monopoly is that because we've never seen any real competition, we don't know what advantages (or lack thereof) a competitor might offer. I think we might find any premature offerings to be either disappointing or doomed for failure.
  51. testing the mod / meta-mod ? by phillct · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that user has a few nice ones on this topic... Check out this one (heh). Testing the mod systems? A bot? Slashdot civil disobedience? Flippant? Karma Suicidal?

    1. Re:testing the mod / meta-mod ? by Lunastorm · · Score: 1

      I'd describe it as a bizarre juxtaposition of karma whoring and karma suicide. I think I'm starting a trend though.

      --
      You die too easily.
  52. Re:Interesting...Liked the engineering economics by Elbereth · · Score: 2

    I just get depressed when I read stuff like this.

    Seriously now, is there any country in Europe that's different than the U.S. in regards to telcos, power, etc? I've thought about moving to Germany, Britain, or the Netherlands. Hell, even France, since I speak some French.

    I don't want to end up in a technologically backwards country like Afghanistan, though...

    Just call me a wannabe ex-patriot.

  53. response from CMI by ajmfreefall · · Score: 1

    Many people have realized that there is an excess in the supply of broadband, and lowered demand for high-speed Internet. Nobody wants a faster Internet. Nobody wants a faster CPU. Well, Nobody, that doesn't care much about the technical superiority of, for example, the AMD Athlon architecture. From the DC economists, to the NYC fiancers, and from the Silicon Valley vulture capitalists to the top executives of the largest tech-sector firms in North America, NO ONE wants to face the truth - the creation of Internet was a massive fuck-up. It's more than obvious that the infrastructure of the Internet was so rapidly built, that its applications could not possibly utilize it. Essentially, between 1996 and 1998, there was a gold rush in America. People were spending billions of dollars on Internet infrastructure. Anyone who had the kind of cash it takes to raise multi-million dollar corporations was betting his money on the chance that our entire economy will fully depend on the Internet for its function. The dream that high-speed Internet would be available in every mini-mart and taxi cab in America has yet to come true. So much capital was invested in this idea that if it was not implimented in the nick of time, the entire economy would go into a recession. And here we are, in a recession. Strangly enough, most people are still betting their money on broadband. The only way that the "Internet Economy" can be saved is by rapidly developing applications for high-speed networks. Unfortunatly the software market is in a miserable condition. Things like mp3s and Napster really only gave a temporary need to expand the Internet's intrastructure, in order to provide high-speed access. It turns out that if you send something over the net, you can be sure it's possible to copy it, crack it, and restribute it. Subsequently large portions of the Internet are deemed criminal and shut down. So there's a huge problem here. There's almost too much bandwidth, and people don't really want any more. In fact, a lot of them probably don't even want faster computers anymore. Many Americans are discovering that they don't really need tetter technology, in terms of the computers in their homes. So the last-mile problem isn't really a problem. Few people REALLY REALLY NEED anything faster than an old fashion dial-up modem. So DSL and Cable are much nicer, and a lot of people enjoy that little luxury of having websites show up quickly. And it's good for the kids' edubication too. The people who wrote this research paper insist that everyone needs high-speed Internet in their homes, just like they need a microwave. It also goes on to assume that the corporate world needs FAR more bandwidth. It's like building highways in the middle of nowhere, in the hopes that people will buy more cars. What it all comes down to is people trying to get the government to dump piles of cash into ISP industry. This is a dead end. The money should be going into software development and research into networking applications. The Internet needs a massive over-haul.

  54. One thing bothers me by teasea · · Score: 1
    Speaking as someone who was once a licensed plumber, running lines in the sewers poses a couple problems I can think of.
    • One, sewers back up and need to be snaked with steel blades. I'm trying to picture how they would avoid slicing the cables...
    • Two, I know you can get a lot of bandwidth from fibre, but still, if they keep putting more and more fibre in the sewer, it will mean more problems with backups. Eww.
  55. Why not. by skeptic · · Score: 1

    The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars

    Why did the U.S. Postal Service lose over $1B last year? Because the private sector innovated and kicked its ass. Monopolies are monopolies, public or private. There's nothing special about a gov't run monopoly accept for that it sucks up even more money for bureaucratic expenses.

    1. Re:Why not. by Wendel+T.+Shaggy · · Score: 1


      The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars

      Really this depends heavily on whether you think that the service/infrastructure in question is important enough to the national welfare that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure that there is universal coverage. Companies are driven by the profit motive and as such are not likely to ensure service in less attractive areas. A government can ensure that even less lucrative customers can access the essential service. Now, there are certainly several ways to go about doing this, but government ownership is not the evil you make it out to be. In the US, the public roads are a case example. They are generally government owned (though not always operated) and they are some of the best road systems on which I have ever driven. A contrasting example is the stimulus of universal telephony coverage as mandated in '34. There the US government basically regulated the rural telephone system into existence. (I would also suggest the school system as an example of a government owned facility - there are several places in the world where the national school system works quite well.)

      Back to the issue of broadband. What you find is that of the countries that lead in broadband penetration (South Korea, Singapore, Canada) the top two have had significant involvement by the government in driving the buildout. In Singapore the government actually did the backbone buildout and later privatized it. In Europe, Sweden is a broadband leader, and the government, both national and local, has taken an extremely active roll in ensuring broadband growth. There are subsidies to the infrastructure players and municipally owned networks. (Though they should have given Telia a firm kick in the ass a little earlier, IMHO)

      For a good read on this topic, try the new OECD broadband report

  56. Wireless networking solves the last mile problem. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    There is a couple of companies doing it in the UK now. They are not using 802.11b though. Not sure what they are using.

    --
    Deleted
  57. Re:Interesting...Liked the engineering economics by imrdkl · · Score: 1

    Er, that's expatriate. You'll take exception to the misspelling too, if you ever become one.

  58. Investment Opportunity by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much this company's stock would jump if everything the claim turns out true and they kick ass on the last mile!!! Could be a Microsoft sized jump?

    --
    ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  59. Broadband, stop yer whinin' and get on the cart! by tenzig_112 · · Score: 2
    "But I'm not dead yet."

    "You'll soon be stone dead."

    "I'm getting better."


    One thing we can say for sure, 2001 has proven that a lot of technologies we all believed were slam dunks only a year ago are looking less and less like sure things.

    ABC's Monday Night Football suspended HDTV broadcasts indefinitely. DSL companies are dropping like flies. And now cable broadband is starting to waver.

    Perhaps my belief in technological manifest destiny was unwarranted. Anybody want an HD monitor cheap?


    Fake News Story: Welcome Back To 56k

  60. Another possible competitor by wowbagger · · Score: 2

    The biggest single problem in the last mile is cost of driving a cable of any sort to your house. You have to have right of way access to the property, you have to dig a trench, you have to have junction points. The cost of the cable itself it trivial.

    Right now, we have the cable companies and the telcos driving cables to your house, since they are already going that way. But there is a third possible player that hasn't yet entered the fray.

    I used to live in the city, and had my electric bill on direct debit. I now live in the country, and belong to an electrical co-op. To keep the price down, they don't have routine meter readers - I have to read my own meter and report usage (and the occasionally spot-check me). As a result, direct debit is out - I cut them a check ever month.

    Last month, as I was hiking out to the meter, I thought, "The electric company already has a right of way to the meter, why don't they drop a cable alongside the power line and set up a smart meter. Then, they could also offer data services, as well as variable rate metering (different costs per KWH based on time of day)".

    Think about it.

    1) Look at Qwest - they used to be a GAS PIPELINE company. They needed data on the pumping stations, so they ran fiber. Their CEO had vision - he made them run a lot of extra fiber.
    2) Like a telco (and quite UNLIKE a cable company) the electric company understands uptime. If your cable goes down, "we'll fix it in a few days" is considered acceptable. If your phone or power goes down, a truck is rolling in minutes after the report, rain, shine, or hurricane.
    3) The power companies would LOVE to be able to encourage people to spread the load to off-peak times, but they have no good way of offering the average consumer a reward for doing so. Variable rate billing would solve that problem.
    4) If they had a network to read the meters, they could save money on meter readers.

    I think the only reason this has not happened yet is that power company CEOs don't have the vision Qwest had.

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
  61. My company is replacing the TelCo last mile by Canadria · · Score: 1

    The company I work for (This is not a plug so I won't mention who) has leveraged itself in a position to replace the TelCo's here. We are using broadband wireless technology and we have done significant enough damage to the phone company here that they have started to market specifically against us. We are not using 802.11b (I know I'm going to get flamed for that) or any other non-propietary protocol. Our equipment is built for what we are using it for. We don't make the subscribers buy any equipment, we keep ownership so that if you leave our network, you are not stuck with a useless piece of equipment.

    We use the 5.8 Ghz frequecy for the SU's so that there is no worry about wash from too many devices in the band and our equipment is directional so there is little chance of stray signals messing up the equipment. On our backbone we use 18, 27 and 38 Ghz to go between our access points. We won't have any issues with over subscription because for $2500 we caqn slap up a new access panel for a 60 degree arc to service more people.

    Our customer service record is second to none. The company has been around for two years and we have 0 customer churn. Not one customer has left our company for any reason.

    Devon

  62. Re:Interesting... $40 ? i wish. by freq · · Score: 1

    $40?
    try $55 a month.

    Roadrunner is raising their prices in my area next month so all the clueless bandwidth hogging aol-ians can pay double for their retarded interface at the expense of MY bandwidth.

    --
    "Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
  63. Can "last mile" be done privately? by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    Here is what I am thinking:

    The problem of last mile is two-fold: a) The monopoly held by power/telco/cable (and possibly water co) to get wires to your house, and b) The hassles involved for a "startup", or anybody else, to get rights to bury a new cable or conduit.

    I wonder if there is a way around this - it would be ugly (very, VERY ugly), but could anyone prevent it?

    Imagine stringing up a neighborhood, running the wire (most likely, fiber) between buildings, but not burying it, but by running it along the fence lines, and in some cases, hanging it free from the rooftops. Maybe in some cheap PVC painted to match the neighborhood, and to protect the cable. Each house would get a cheap interface, consisting of the fiber input and output, and a 10BaseT or 100BaseT connector (to go to the rest of the house) - kinda like a switch or hub of sorts.

    For most neighborhoods (especially the ones with evil HAs), this could be done and would be hidden, and thus wouldn't bring on anyone's wrath. It would be crossing property lines, but hopefully the neighbors would get along well enough to be amiable about this. Some runs would have to go under the dirt (such as where gates are), but only in a small 3 inch depth PVC run, for about 3 feet. All the connections would have to terminate somewhere - ideally, all the residents would get together and buy one house to serve as the "terminus", and for that house get a T1 dropped and set up.

    Older neighborhoods would be easier, because of lack of an HA.

    One could say "do it with 802.11" - but this has the main problem of major up front cost (for each house) and interference (for a variety of reasons). The solution I propose could be done cheapest if you don't go with fiber, but instead use Cat5e and 100BaseT four port switches at each house. If you didn't want to go to the expense of getting a T1, if each (or most) houses have cable or DSL, then all houses could share the bandwidth in some manner, given the proper gateway/router/firewall system with proper load sharing software.

    How would I go about setting this up?

    First, I would go house to house, and ask each resident if the own a computer, and whether they would enjoy broadband. Ask them if the currently have DSL or cable, or if they use dialup. Ask each of them what the maximum they would be willing to pay for broadband, if they wanted it. Ask them if they would be willing to be part of a co-op for getting broadband. If they seem willing, share the idea with them.

    Once you have asked enough people, calculate amounts - and if you are given a low enough amount from the calculations, go around and distribute flyers to each house. Make it a cooperative venture, where each resident is responsible for the wire from each side of his property line to his house, the switch, and the firewall/router (cost wise). Find out which residents are capable of set up and wiring (running conduit, etc), to help those who aren't. Offer a simple single disk install of linux for the router/firewall - and point out (or offer to build) these cheap boxes (think "yellow box linux" here). Or, depending on the setup, allow your standard el-cheapon linksys router/firewalls, etc.

    I am certain this can be done - as long as all the neighbors cooperate. Can anyone point out issues in my reasoning? Are there laws or regulations preventing people from getting together to do such a thing (and if so - do these laws violate any rights)? What is stopping people from doing this?

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  64. Convince Me! by damien+champagne · · Score: 1

    The simplest way to convince the masses it to lower the price. That's the only thing keeping people away from broadband, and the situation would change overnight. My biggest fear (and I'm not alone) is that I'll take the $40 plunge only to have the rate go up to $50 in six months. I love broadband - I have it at work and it's crippling to have to go home to the 56k at home. But the simple fact is, I just can't make that little extra a month (and the U.S. economy ain't helpin' either.)