Don't count on competition to foster innovation if the big telecos and cable cos can sqaush the competition before it has a chance -- or just buy the competition (effectively shutting down the alternative or delaying it greatly until there is some financial reason to innovate.) It will be up to the regulators to prevent these types of situations. And will they?
Huge ass bold would be good to keep those using graphical browsers from missing the point. And the benefit of the bold tag is that it wouldn't do anything to anoy those of us using lynx on a terminal.;)
But that's _NOT_ what Look is offering! There is a difference, you know between wireless digital access on a cellular device and wireless broadband fixed service!
Just a little confused as to why no one gets this...;)
But I do agree that the wireless devices that make up the base of 3G are a little fluffy at this point, but the money you waste -- it's for a good cause, no? 4G is what will matter.
Exactly, if you can't do upstream at reasonable rates, over the wireless link, then the solution isn't as attractive for anything except remote or rural provision. Same problem with Satellite access from major players. Downlinks that require the aditional setup and cost of an uplink aren't really enough to compete with landlines in metros. With satellite there are aditional issues like latency and with providers like Look there are line of sight issues. The ideal solution would be better landline infastructure. But in your industry this wouldn't do much good because of the great remoteness. Two-way satellites are available but quite pricey even for companies to use.
Look uses a single point broadcast model at this time. It allows a larger range and they have a special license that allows broadcasting form the tower at higher powers I think, but alas the range isn't large enough (as I can attest). Look is also much cheaper than $800 and month -- something like $40 I think...
They don't use run of the mill Wireless ethernet technology, you even require an uplink over landline.
As far as I have heard Look uses a single Tower in Quebec to service the Ottawa, Hull area. Since this tower serves the whole local customer base, it is a broadcast only technology servicing both the Internet and TV services. The uplink is via landline that is still required! This is one reason the bi-directional service would have made Look alot more apealling to the masses as a full fledge alternative. I think Look is diluting itself all over Canada. Why can't Look just do it right in the East (Ontario and Quebec) for instance? It's a shame they are having so much trouble since Ottawa as a whole (outlying areas included) is still missing a good competetive alternative to the incumbent Rogers and Bell. The irony is that here in Ottawa there is a huge core of high-tech companies designing and bringing to market the very solutions that are needed to drive residential broadband access. =) Go figure. The newly elected government is suppose to be bringing broadband to everyone including residences...
So maybe Look should ask for some of the newly alloted funds? (If there is actually money behind the words at this point.) I wonder if they have already attempted this. It is strange that the government should have to step into this, is the market so stagnent that innovative companies can't make a go at it? I noticed that in some press releases Look is saying that BCE (Bell Canada parent company) now has a stake in one of the major stakeholder's of Look and is cutting off capital -- because Look is competing with Bell's satellite services. Shows the sad state of Canada's local access market. Bell Canada is still the biggest single player in Ontario I would say and pretty much has control over everything on the residential access front other than cable I would think. BCE is also buying stakes in some TV stations and media outlets.
As a dial-up subscriber to Look's internet and an *intrested* residential customer I have a little bit of insight to share.
The problem with Look's high speed service is that it is not available where it is *really* needed in Ontario. The company is Quebec based and the service doesn't reach most of rural Ontario where BOTH Bell Canada and Rogers Communications are fairly slow in implementing broadband access. This is where Look could make a killing. I have been calling every 4-5 months for about a year and a half now to inquire when the service will be expanded to the people who need it the most. Look needs an infusion of cash to implement a) bi-directional wireless (non-landline UP) and b) expanded coverage. They focused on the wrong residential market investing in the down town core of Ottawa and not extending the service to us desperate rural people.
It's a shame they couldn't make a bigger go of it from the start, they probably would have been able to beat Rogers and Bell Canada hands down in the rural broadcast and Internet market. Their dial-up pool is highly reliable (in Ottawa), let's hope it stays that way with their focus shifting from Residential -- if not, I'm gonna go with another ISP. Hats off to Internet Direct for keeping the dial-up quality so high even after being aquired by Look. But to Look, your real fixed wireless and TV market is in porely serviced rural areas. Even then, there is the question if it can ever be made profitable, and with competition from Bell's satellite services.... it may be tough.
I think the Linux and BSD operating systems should be all that we can stretch them to become. Forget the limitations that they show now. If Linux needs some work to become a desktop OS; why not focus on making it one in addition to a server OS?
So what, it doesn't have all the code in place yet to be the ultimate desktop. Doesn't mean we should leave it for dead when searching for desktop OS options. The whole idea of Linux is to implement code as is needed to facilitate applications.
And I sure as hell would prefer to use Linux as my desktop OS over Windows or MacOS (sorry Apple, I don't think your innovative enough these days). And when using Linux as my desktop OS, I want an intuative, feature-filled, and customizable GUI -- one that can rival atleast Windows, then MacOS; although I don't care if it's not all there from day one. So if we start by mimicking Windows type controls and look, so what? If you don't like the Windows look, hack in your own prefered look. Let's add some Mac and BeOS to the mix. For all the Mac fans out there: I hate to tell you this, but you would probably be better not waiting for Apple to implement it.
Better still; let's focus on customization of App. front-ends and window manager menu and desktop interfaces by enabling skinning through a full-feature front-end architecture that is not only lean but actually offers control and window placement options that a user can configure (WinAMP skinning is an example of an unworthy skinning architecture offering very little in the way of position changes of controls or enable/disable of controls). We need something better than basic skinning. We need to take some from what has already been done in AfterStep. What also comes to mind is the Mac and it's resource files and how they interface to the code to create dialogs and windows (DLG, WDEF: that can be edited through ResEdit). Although I am sure we can make a much better implementation of resource defenitions. Also another example of what we need is a Visual C++ style window and control layout tool that a user can use to make a layout preference for the application. The Mac never supported skinning fully, and the hacks that did work to enhance the look and feel, were prone to incompatibility as newer versions of the MacOS where upgraded. But in the Linux world, this shouldn't be a problem due to the nature of OpenSource, if we can agree on taking it to the next level by sticking with a few main standards and building on them. And looks like Gnome and KDE are going in the right direction. But if need be let's hack at X itself and related tools until it is fully capable of what Linux and BSD need: a real and fully featured desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
All I have to say is: Where the F was the CRTC in all this... do they even care that BCE is gutting Canadian telecom still?
Don't count on competition to foster innovation if the big telecos and cable cos can sqaush the competition before it has a chance -- or just buy the competition (effectively shutting down the alternative or delaying it greatly until there is some financial reason to innovate.) It will be up to the regulators to prevent these types of situations. And will they?
Huge ass bold would be good to keep those using graphical browsers from missing the point. And the benefit of the bold tag is that it wouldn't do anything to anoy those of us using lynx on a terminal. ;)
But that's _NOT_ what Look is offering! There is a difference, you know between wireless digital access on a cellular device and wireless broadband fixed service! Just a little confused as to why no one gets this... ;)
But I do agree that the wireless devices that make up the base of 3G are a little fluffy at this point, but the money you waste -- it's for a good cause, no? 4G is what will matter.
Exactly, if you can't do upstream at reasonable rates, over the wireless link, then the solution isn't as attractive for anything except remote or rural provision. Same problem with Satellite access from major players. Downlinks that require the aditional setup and cost of an uplink aren't really enough to compete with landlines in metros. With satellite there are aditional issues like latency and with providers like Look there are line of sight issues. The ideal solution would be better landline infastructure. But in your industry this wouldn't do much good because of the great remoteness. Two-way satellites are available but quite pricey even for companies to use.
Look uses a single point broadcast model at this time. It allows a larger range and they have a special license that allows broadcasting form the tower at higher powers I think, but alas the range isn't large enough (as I can attest). Look is also much cheaper than $800 and month -- something like $40 I think...
They don't use run of the mill Wireless ethernet technology, you even require an uplink over landline.
As far as I have heard Look uses a single Tower in Quebec to service the Ottawa, Hull area. Since this tower serves the whole local customer base, it is a broadcast only technology servicing both the Internet and TV services. The uplink is via landline that is still required! This is one reason the bi-directional service would have made Look alot more apealling to the masses as a full fledge alternative. I think Look is diluting itself all over Canada. Why can't Look just do it right in the East (Ontario and Quebec) for instance? It's a shame they are having so much trouble since Ottawa as a whole (outlying areas included) is still missing a good competetive alternative to the incumbent Rogers and Bell. The irony is that here in Ottawa there is a huge core of high-tech companies designing and bringing to market the very solutions that are needed to drive residential broadband access. =) Go figure. The newly elected government is suppose to be bringing broadband to everyone including residences...
So maybe Look should ask for some of the newly alloted funds? (If there is actually money behind the words at this point.) I wonder if they have already attempted this. It is strange that the government should have to step into this, is the market so stagnent that innovative companies can't make a go at it? I noticed that in some press releases Look is saying that BCE (Bell Canada parent company) now has a stake in one of the major stakeholder's of Look and is cutting off capital -- because Look is competing with Bell's satellite services. Shows the sad state of Canada's local access market. Bell Canada is still the biggest single player in Ontario I would say and pretty much has control over everything on the residential access front other than cable I would think. BCE is also buying stakes in some TV stations and media outlets.
As a dial-up subscriber to Look's internet and an *intrested* residential customer I have a little bit of insight to share.
The problem with Look's high speed service is that it is not available where it is *really* needed in Ontario. The company is Quebec based and the service doesn't reach most of rural Ontario where BOTH Bell Canada and Rogers Communications are fairly slow in implementing broadband access. This is where Look could make a killing. I have been calling every 4-5 months for about a year and a half now to inquire when the service will be expanded to the people who need it the most. Look needs an infusion of cash to implement a) bi-directional wireless (non-landline UP) and b) expanded coverage. They focused on the wrong residential market investing in the down town core of Ottawa and not extending the service to us desperate rural people.
It's a shame they couldn't make a bigger go of it from the start, they probably would have been able to beat Rogers and Bell Canada hands down in the rural broadcast and Internet market. Their dial-up pool is highly reliable (in Ottawa), let's hope it stays that way with their focus shifting from Residential -- if not, I'm gonna go with another ISP. Hats off to Internet Direct for keeping the dial-up quality so high even after being aquired by Look. But to Look, your real fixed wireless and TV market is in porely serviced rural areas. Even then, there is the question if it can ever be made profitable, and with competition from Bell's satellite services.... it may be tough.
I think the Linux and BSD operating systems should be all that we can stretch them to become. Forget the limitations that they show now. If Linux needs some work to become a desktop OS; why not focus on making it one in addition to a server OS?
So what, it doesn't have all the code in place yet to be the ultimate desktop. Doesn't mean we should leave it for dead when searching for desktop OS options. The whole idea of Linux is to implement code as is needed to facilitate applications.
And I sure as hell would prefer to use Linux as my desktop OS over Windows or MacOS (sorry Apple, I don't think your innovative enough these days). And when using Linux as my desktop OS, I want an intuative, feature-filled, and customizable GUI -- one that can rival atleast Windows, then MacOS; although I don't care if it's not all there from day one. So if we start by mimicking Windows type controls and look, so what? If you don't like the Windows look, hack in your own prefered look. Let's add some Mac and BeOS to the mix. For all the Mac fans out there: I hate to tell you this, but you would probably be better not waiting for Apple to implement it.
Better still; let's focus on customization of App. front-ends and window manager menu and desktop interfaces by enabling skinning through a full-feature front-end architecture that is not only lean but actually offers control and window placement options that a user can configure (WinAMP skinning is an example of an unworthy skinning architecture offering very little in the way of position changes of controls or enable/disable of controls). We need something better than basic skinning. We need to take some from what has already been done in AfterStep. What also comes to mind is the Mac and it's resource files and how they interface to the code to create dialogs and windows (DLG, WDEF: that can be edited through ResEdit). Although I am sure we can make a much better implementation of resource defenitions. Also another example of what we need is a Visual C++ style window and control layout tool that a user can use to make a layout preference for the application. The Mac never supported skinning fully, and the hacks that did work to enhance the look and feel, were prone to incompatibility as newer versions of the MacOS where upgraded. But in the Linux world, this shouldn't be a problem due to the nature of OpenSource, if we can agree on taking it to the next level by sticking with a few main standards and building on them. And looks like Gnome and KDE are going in the right direction. But if need be let's hack at X itself and related tools until it is fully capable of what Linux and BSD need: a real and fully featured desktop.