Joltage Powers Down

jbyter writes "Wi-Fi service provider Joltage sent a e-mail to subscribers that read "It is with regret that I am writing to inform you that Joltage will be discontinuing its Wi-Fi subscriber and provider services effective at the end of this month." This could have been very cool, but due to economy and lack of subscriber participation they are no longer able to finance their operations." Too bad -- this sounded like a good idea. The Joltage homepage isn't much help -- it's in place, but content-free. Any other Joltage customers who can comment on this?

Comments

not meant to be

[jwdeff]

For this to be popular, they would need some serious market saturation. I'm not going to try to find a joltage provider in my area, just for the 1/1000 chance to get cheaper bandwidth.

And the people selling their excess bandwidth would probably be breaking their agreement with their internet service provider.

It was just not meant to be.

Service Agreements?

[Sheetrock]

No doubt a large part of the problem is that it is illegal to redistribute your broadband to people that haven't paid for it, as it should be -- the terms by which cable/DSL are sold are necessary to keep the costs down and the service available to subscribers. The ISPs aren't budgeting for our slack times to be used by 'passers-by'.

Re:Service Agreements?

[jericho4.0]

I understand that ISP's need to have such TOS to be able to provide service in the first place, but the concept still seems wrong to me.

When I buy bandwidth, I expect to be able to do anything I please with that bandwidth. As it is, common TOS are holding back internet development. I see a day coming when every appliance has an IP (_not_ NATed), and every person is a content provider. That's what the 'net promises and they better deliver.

Re:Service Agreements?

[jwdeff]

It's all about costs. A T1 line costs a helluva lot of money for 1.5 mbps bandwidth. My cable modem downloads at 1.5 mbps. Why is the T1 so much more expensive? How it is used and licensed.

In an ideal world, we would all get as much bandwidth as the physical lines could carry, but we'd only pay for what we'd use. That way, even casual internet users could download things faster, but not pay as much as hardcore pirates and business users, who use more bandwidth.

It would provide a better experience for everyone, and better reflect costs.

To expand on this idea, perhaps have evening and weekend bandwidth cheaper, so we can all fight the RIAA the only way we can :-)

(notes: I'm aware that a cable modem has less upload speed than a T1 line, i'm just illustrating a point. Also I'm aware that most /. readers wouldn't like this plan, since they probably use more bandwidth than average and would therefore pay more.)

Re:Service Agreements?

[SlashdotLemming]

Right, and "all you can eat" restaurants are promoting world hunger because they don't let you bring 12 friends along to eat from your plate of food that you paid for and you should be able to do anything you want with.

The ISPs go under the assumption that not all of their subscribers are not going to be maxed out 24x7. If that changes then your "unlimited" access will get a bit more pricey.

destined to fail?

[newsdee]

I would expect a company with excess bandwidth to downgrade their lines and save money, not to give it to somebody else for a lower sum.

I don't think even incompetent managers get T3 lines to look "cool" when several T1 will do. ;-)

no adverts

[BigBir3d]

aside from /. i have not heard a thing about this company. i guess we know why it failed.

Who?

[raider_red]

Okay, maybe I'm out of the loop on this completely, but how many people reading this story have actually heard of Joltage? I haven't before today.