Your comparing them to American persons. These guys are taking calc in the 4rth grade. Our idea of technical people is most likely a bit different over there, I would tend to think..
There's one thing you are not thinking off.. The REASON why the USPS is so much cheaper then UPS and FedEx is becouse, BY FEDERAL LAW, these companies MUST CHARGE 3 TIMES MORE then the USPS for the equiv. service..
The USPS IS out of date. It is a corperation without the responsibilities of ine..
How long does it take them to fix potholes? Now, the equivilent of it would be a pothole that covers your entire driveway, and you can't get in or out.. How long till they fix it when EVER pothole is that size.. A little pothole kills net usage completely..
Problem is, cable services doesn;t run ALL on the coax.. It only runs part on the coax, then it bumps up to fiber run by the company, the actual ISP side.. How can AOL get to the house without that part? Well, they have to run their own fiber to every neiborhood..;-P
Ok, so are they going to bring their own fiber to the neiborhoods? Everyone doesn;t run off the coax.. It only runs there locally, till it rides onto fiber to the local neiborhood..
Here's the problem.. The cable networks aren't designed that way.. Sure, they could take it away, but it still wouldn't work, they are NOT modular like that.. Plain and simple..
Then if the comminications grids are going to be public entities, then they should be run by the public, not private companies.. Look at the postal service for an example..
You've contradicted youself.. Why is cable so cheap, if the cable companies have it all locked in, and can charge anything they want on their lines? If there is no competition, WHY IS it so cheap?
But it also doesn;t mean that they should FORCE people to lease those lines.. And here's the problem.. You can't just 'lease a line'.. The networks are not set up that way.. The cable goes from you to a box on the pole, at which point it's one giant pipe.. You're talking about network access now.. Suppose AOL starts to offer services that take up 90% of the pipe? What then? The cable company stifles, as they need to suffer.. They can't 'kick aol' off, becouse they're bound by lease..
98% of the population lives within several miles of a Network Switch, which is the requirement for ADSL service.. Granted, there is still a matter of old, decaying lines, but hey, if allowing everyone access to the lines is such a good thing, I guess this isn't happening..;-P
Anyway, I'm NOT saying that everyone should 100% have to lay their own lines, but at the same time, the government should NOT FORCE companies to literally give away access to something that they spent the money to lay originally..
97% of the US population lives with several miles of a network switch, which is the ONLY thing required for ADSL capabilities in an area.. It's not Central Office, it's Switch..
This already exists.. AOL has a 9.95 'no dialup, IP only' option.. But it's not enough for them.. They want SOLE CONTROL.. They want to be able to beam multimedia (Aka, TV, music) into your house, and circumvent telco and cable laws..
Agreed!! They seem to think that everyone should be giving them access to their physical assest, regardless.. Nothing is stopping AOL from buying up/building, but they seem to have NO interest in doing this, simply in having someone else provide the line..
They already DO have access to these customers.. It's called IP..
ISP's provde a WHOLE lot more then simply doling out IP numbers..
ISP's provide a network that has a connection to other networks, which, as a whole make 'the internet'. ISP's connect to ISP's, and they MAKE the internet what it is..
The internet isn't this network provided by NSI, you know.. It's a whole lot more then that..
But companies like AOL could have rolled out xDSL a LONG time ago.. We've had full ADSL access in NH thru Vitts network for some time.. You don't see AOL hollering at them, now do you.. Why one would ask? ADSL service is accesible to 98% of the US population.. There's no leveraging of a monopoly there.. Media One and Vitts do compete with each other, on different lines.. Where is there a monopoly? We've got the same laws.. Copper can provide the same service that the coax can..
Communistic tendencies in a Capitalistic society doesn't benifit anyone either, but that's the way people want to look at it.. 'Thank you for laying the cable, now, please allow anyone to use it, k?'..
Hell, why don't we mandate that it all be taken over my the public works department, just like roads.. That's what the basis of 'opening up' is..
Oh wait, their service sucks, now doesn't it? Hrm, perhaps if they had insentive to actually make money.. Oh wait, this is bad, I remember now..;-P
Someone layed the cable in the first place.. They SPENT the money that is supposedly 'prohibitivly expensive'. Hell, why don't we just regulate the satalite companies to require that everyone in the country be allocated a private channel.. I mean, it is prohibitivly expensive to send a satalite into orbit, so we should all force them to give us access, right?;-P
I have to give you this, you have a slight point.. But the catch is that other companies also have access to that property, just like the cable company does..
You've proven another good example of why open access is bad..
A) They simply sit back and rake in the fees for providing that access, and do quite simply nothing to move forward.. They have incentive to keep things in the dark ages, becouse by spending little, they can rake in lots..
B) They DID lay down the capital, and they should be allowed to keep it, but others can simply walk in and take what they ignore.. Cable companies are now doing this by offering phone service on the same line..
Err, I'm not sure I see any point to what your saying.. Quality of access? How is something like xDSL a worse quality then a Cable Modem?
And people use AOL for content, and they choose to have it presented to them in a certain way.. That's their choice.. AOL does a good job at what it does.. Providing a service for the masses..
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.jabber.org
We're still alive, and actively working on it.. Take a gander over..
Wow, your right, I hadn't really noticed..
Your comparing them to American persons. These guys are taking calc in the 4rth grade. Our idea of technical people is most likely a bit different over there, I would tend to think..
There's one thing you are not thinking off.. The REASON why the USPS is so much cheaper then UPS and FedEx is becouse, BY FEDERAL LAW, these companies MUST CHARGE 3 TIMES MORE then the USPS for the equiv. service..
The USPS IS out of date. It is a corperation without the responsibilities of ine..
Same with Cable Modem usage.. You can't just thwack cable modems onto coax and have it work.. It all has to be terminated, etc..
How long does it take them to fix potholes? Now, the equivilent of it would be a pothole that covers your entire driveway, and you can't get in or out.. How long till they fix it when EVER pothole is that size.. A little pothole kills net usage completely..
Problem is, cable services doesn;t run ALL on the coax.. It only runs part on the coax, then it bumps up to fiber run by the company, the actual ISP side.. How can AOL get to the house without that part? Well, they have to run their own fiber to every neiborhood.. ;-P
Ok, so are they going to bring their own fiber to the neiborhoods? Everyone doesn;t run off the coax.. It only runs there locally, till it rides onto fiber to the local neiborhood..
Here's the problem.. The cable networks aren't designed that way.. Sure, they could take it away, but it still wouldn't work, they are NOT modular like that.. Plain and simple..
Then if the comminications grids are going to be public entities, then they should be run by the public, not private companies.. Look at the postal service for an example..
You've contradicted youself.. Why is cable so cheap, if the cable companies have it all locked in, and can charge anything they want on their lines? If there is no competition, WHY IS it so cheap?
But it also doesn;t mean that they should FORCE people to lease those lines.. And here's the problem.. You can't just 'lease a line'.. The networks are not set up that way.. The cable goes from you to a box on the pole, at which point it's one giant pipe.. You're talking about network access now.. Suppose AOL starts to offer services that take up 90% of the pipe? What then? The cable company stifles, as they need to suffer.. They can't 'kick aol' off, becouse they're bound by lease..
Those are the only choices.. Can you see any alternative? Who pays for that one line that everyone can use? Who maintains a free for all network?
I truely wish I could think of another way, but in a capatalist society, I can't think of any.. Can you?
98% of the population lives within several miles of a Network Switch, which is the requirement for ADSL service.. Granted, there is still a matter of old, decaying lines, but hey, if allowing everyone access to the lines is such a good thing, I guess this isn't happening.. ;-P
Anyway, I'm NOT saying that everyone should 100% have to lay their own lines, but at the same time, the government should NOT FORCE companies to literally give away access to something that they spent the money to lay originally..
97% of the US population lives with several miles of a network switch, which is the ONLY thing required for ADSL capabilities in an area.. It's not Central Office, it's Switch..
This already exists.. AOL has a 9.95 'no dialup, IP only' option.. But it's not enough for them.. They want SOLE CONTROL.. They want to be able to beam multimedia (Aka, TV, music) into your house, and circumvent telco and cable laws..
Agreed!! They seem to think that everyone should be giving them access to their physical assest, regardless.. Nothing is stopping AOL from buying up/building, but they seem to have NO interest in doing this, simply in having someone else provide the line..
They already DO have access to these customers.. It's called IP..
This is about Internet access, NOT CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS.. CABLE is NOT the ONLY WAY to provide broadband access..
ISP's provde a WHOLE lot more then simply doling out IP numbers..
ISP's provide a network that has a connection to other networks, which, as a whole make 'the internet'. ISP's connect to ISP's, and they MAKE the internet what it is..
The internet isn't this network provided by NSI, you know.. It's a whole lot more then that..
But companies like AOL could have rolled out xDSL a LONG time ago.. We've had full ADSL access in NH thru Vitts network for some time.. You don't see AOL hollering at them, now do you.. Why one would ask? ADSL service is accesible to 98% of the US population.. There's no leveraging of a monopoly there.. Media One and Vitts do compete with each other, on different lines.. Where is there a monopoly? We've got the same laws.. Copper can provide the same service that the coax can..
Communistic tendencies in a Capitalistic society doesn't benifit anyone either, but that's the way people want to look at it.. 'Thank you for laying the cable, now, please allow anyone to use it, k?'..
;-P
Hell, why don't we mandate that it all be taken over my the public works department, just like roads.. That's what the basis of 'opening up' is..
Oh wait, their service sucks, now doesn't it? Hrm, perhaps if they had insentive to actually make money.. Oh wait, this is bad, I remember now..
Someone layed the cable in the first place.. They SPENT the money that is supposedly 'prohibitivly expensive'. Hell, why don't we just regulate the satalite companies to require that everyone in the country be allocated a private channel.. I mean, it is prohibitivly expensive to send a satalite into orbit, so we should all force them to give us access, right? ;-P
I have to give you this, you have a slight point.. But the catch is that other companies also have access to that property, just like the cable company does..
You've proven another good example of why open access is bad..
A) They simply sit back and rake in the fees for providing that access, and do quite simply nothing to move forward.. They have incentive to keep things in the dark ages, becouse by spending little, they can rake in lots..
B) They DID lay down the capital, and they should be allowed to keep it, but others can simply walk in and take what they ignore.. Cable companies are now doing this by offering phone service on the same line..
Err, I'm not sure I see any point to what your saying.. Quality of access? How is something like xDSL a worse quality then a Cable Modem?
And people use AOL for content, and they choose to have it presented to them in a certain way.. That's their choice.. AOL does a good job at what it does.. Providing a service for the masses..