Broadband is dead because no one is willing to pay for bandwidth. Everyone thinks that they should be able to get T1 access for $50 or so a month, and there's just not the infastructre behind that. Businesses whoose marketing plan is to sell things for less than they paid for them will obviously go under. If you give some kid 1.5 Mb access, in about 5 minutes he will be downloading 10 MP3s and the Episode I DivX. I work for a local ISP in a good size town, and DSL is killing us. Verizon charges $49.95 for 768k DSL service on their network and we charge $57.50 (Verizon's line charge of $32.50 and $25 for us). This is compared with the $1400.00 a month for a frame relay. ($700 for verizon, $700 for us).
However, if you give people 768k, they will use it. Our network started becoming saturated and having major lag issues. As a result, we limited our DSL to 384k and are refering anyone who wants faster than that to Verizon.
The point is, that if you compare the cost to provide someone with a broadband connection, it does not match up with the profit generated, if any profit is generated. I guess that the idea of handing out more bandwidth than you have is fine as long as you know that there will never be enough users be connected (i.e. dialup) to take all the bandwidth, but with the "always on" availability of cable and DSL, it just doesn't work. There's only so much bandwidth to go around. Even if you installed a new fiber cable, that can only be divided up so much. People just do not realize how much bandwidth actually costs.
I don't drive an SUV, i drive an efficient FORD station wagon. why is it efficient? because it gets me where i need to go. the funny part is that SUVs have better fuel economy than my car. it's kind of funny that people argue over global warming where there's nothing that we can really do about it. what are we gonna do? stop driving cars? people say that we can make more fuel efficient cars, so what? so we use 25% less gas? i don't see that making any big impact on global warming.
Last time I heard, the US bought it's oil from the middle east. I also thought I heard about gas being 5 dollars or so in Europe. And if Gore would have usurped the presidency, do you really think his leftist environmentalist views would have made energy cheaper?
so they're about the same huh? my point was, how many computers are there in California? well how many TVs do you have in your house? how many millions more TVs are there in California than computers? huh? i've never seen anyone go to a bar to watch a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Broadband is dead because no one is willing to pay for bandwidth. Everyone thinks that they should be able to get T1 access for $50 or so a month, and there's just not the infastructre behind that. Businesses whoose marketing plan is to sell things for less than they paid for them will obviously go under. If you give some kid 1.5 Mb access, in about 5 minutes he will be downloading 10 MP3s and the Episode I DivX. I work for a local ISP in a good size town, and DSL is killing us. Verizon charges $49.95 for 768k DSL service on their network and we charge $57.50 (Verizon's line charge of $32.50 and $25 for us). This is compared with the $1400.00 a month for a frame relay. ($700 for verizon, $700 for us).
However, if you give people 768k, they will use it. Our network started becoming saturated and having major lag issues. As a result, we limited our DSL to 384k and are refering anyone who wants faster than that to Verizon.
The point is, that if you compare the cost to provide someone with a broadband connection, it does not match up with the profit generated, if any profit is generated. I guess that the idea of handing out more bandwidth than you have is fine as long as you know that there will never be enough users be connected (i.e. dialup) to take all the bandwidth, but with the "always on" availability of cable and DSL, it just doesn't work. There's only so much bandwidth to go around. Even if you installed a new fiber cable, that can only be divided up so much. People just do not realize how much bandwidth actually costs.
I don't drive an SUV, i drive an efficient FORD station wagon. why is it efficient? because it gets me where i need to go. the funny part is that SUVs have better fuel economy than my car. it's kind of funny that people argue over global warming where there's nothing that we can really do about it. what are we gonna do? stop driving cars? people say that we can make more fuel efficient cars, so what? so we use 25% less gas? i don't see that making any big impact on global warming.
Last time I heard, the US bought it's oil from the middle east. I also thought I heard about gas being 5 dollars or so in Europe. And if Gore would have usurped the presidency, do you really think his leftist environmentalist views would have made energy cheaper?
doh, this is just like PCXL dying all over again
incontinent moron (intended slanderous pun)
huge percentage????? moron... a computer uses less wattage than a TV