The ILEC is to blame for American DSL's slow speed. (as well as lengthy installation, frequent outages, etc... But that's another story)
They provide dry copper to the competition (i.e. Covad) for slightly less than they charge retail for complete (albeit pathetic) DSL. Covad tacks on (not enough) for their own profit, to which the ISP then adds (not enough) margin.
DSL ISP's are struggling to provide what they currently do and still profit. Providing more bandwidth for the same money will never happen until the ILEC's reduce their charges. (won't happen)
The ILEC's can provide more for less, but why would they? They currently have the Lion's share of DSL circuits, and will certainly outlast all the competing (failing) DLEC's (dot bombs).
There's so much more to this subject. It's such a sad example of the problem with monopolies.
But to the point of the original question:
The cost per Mbps of American DSL is most heavily influenced by the tarrifs imposed by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier. And it's not because it costs them the most. It's not because they add the most or any value. They charge that much because they can. Afterall, it's their copper.
The DSL war between the Bell's and the ISP's was over before it ever started. The rules of engagement (the Telecom Reform Act of 1996) heavily favored the Bell's. The courageous ISP's fought hard, and suffered heavy casualties. The Bell's survived mostly unscathed.
For those ISP's still fighting the war, the phrase "Dead man walking" comes to mind.
Re:Not anymore... ADSL up to 55,000 ft nowaday
on
DSL Woes
·
· Score: 1
And yet, Verizon will still not provision any DSL circuit beyond 18,000 feet.
So "GoLong" "GetsScrewed"
Waiting for the other shoe to drop...
on
DSL Woes
·
· Score: 2
I think the worst is yet to come in the "DSL Shakeout"
I work at a small DSL-only ISP in the New York area. We don't have much for services, but we provide good performance at a decent price. (Our DS-3 is loaded at 3 percent for those complaining of over-subscription) I provide technical assistance, with never a waiting time.
We could be profitable if we had more customers, but unfortunately it costs a lot of money to get customers. Advertising is a significant part of the equation. Consider that we need about 1000 users to be profitable. That would require about 2500 users to sign-up since more than half will cancel before they're ever installed.
Unfortunately, last year cost everyone a ton of money. With everyone giving away routers and setups, and charging barely enough to cover their Covad bills, it's no wonder why so many are now failing.
Those with the deep pockets are now playing a waiting game, hoping to be the last one standing.
I don't blame Covad for doing what they can to become profitable, but I'm not sure that cutting off their ISP's is a wise choice. Read how many people here have found cable to be a more desirable alternative.
If in the end, it is the one with the most money who wins, then it will likely be the ILEC who will be the last one standing. Then they will be free to raise rates, and provide even less service than they do today.
I think the government is to blame for not going far enough in the Telecom Reform of '96. The ILEC has stretched that weakness to the furthest extent possible. They suck to the furthest extent of the law. Covad is to blame for not doing enough to help ailing ISP's. If we're to blame for not running our business well enough, we're in good company.
I don't want to offend anyone, but you guys out there who didn't know you needed a NIC card to get DSL. Those of you who ordered from five companys, and then cancelled all but the first one installed. Those of you who ordered ADSL for your business with 50 users. You're part of the problem as well. I won't name names, you know who you are.
When I was young, so were computers. But frequent was the discussion of the role of technology in society. It was always Orwellian discussions from people who understood not the first thing about computers, but feared their potential (and nuclear holocaust). In the past 30 years our understanding of technology has improved dramatically. Yet I find it strange that we no longer engage in discussions of technology's role in society as a whole, or in government specifically. As the constant evolution of technology weaves an ever tighter integration between private and public information systems.
How far is too far, and who is deciding (corporations/capitalism/we'll let it find it's own equillibrium)? I personally see no other alternative to an entirely integrated world. Maybe not soon, but it does seem inevitable. We are only scratching the surface in an area where all laws are unprecedented. As unpalatable as the idea is, the internet will not remain unregulated.
What is the future for anonymity on the internet? When will it be possible to execute a legally binding contract electronically? How long before flaming is considered a hate crime, spamming considered assault? How long before transmitting a virus is considered terrorism? How long before emailing porn is considered rape? What level of encryption is necessary to protect national security? (is anything less treason-punishable by death) Can someone own the exclusive rights to a pattern of bits? If it's a document, a book, a song? What if it's a person? How long before our genetic code will be stored magnetically? (Talk about identity theft) How long before we are able to opt-out of the government and taxes? How long before we can vote online? How long before I can post a Request For Comments for a law? When can I participate on a virtual jury? (OJ comes to mind)
How long is it going to take before I can review my life's profile online? (I would like to see my account status include all taxes paid and owed, police records, credit reports, medical records educational records)
When will I see the checkbox to select "yes, I would like to receive regular updates on my governments progress"? (would you like the details or just the summary? would you like that to include a Gantt chart with estimated versus actual progress?)
Click here if you would like an elected official to contact you.
How close are we towards this reality, and why do we continue to close the gap on these issues without discussing their impact on society? If I were to run an IT project the way we run this country, I would be fired. We are running without a plan, and addressing the situations as they arise. Why didn't we know about damage to the ozone layer before we began destroying it? Why do we continue it's destruction without sufficiently understanding the problem? (maybe it's good for us, but it's probably too late to fix if it's not) We do this because people in general are not smart enough, or do not care enough to understand the impact from these issues. People instead are content to live their lives oblivious to the situation around them. Things really are much more like the movie The Matrix than anyone seems willing to admit. (which I suppose is redundant) My utter amazement however, is that in this particular forum, there is so much discussion about, well... everything else.
We're all animals living in a zoo. We're trying to figure out who to vote for as head zookeeper giving careful consideration to the one who will make our cage the nicest with the best food and water. (What are your plans Mr Gore relative to the recent lack of fresh vegetation? And Mr Bush, your thoughts on urinating in the watering hole?) I want to know which one is in favor of unlocking the gates!
Who are the real leaders of the Information Age? Is there a thinktank somewhere considering all of these issues? I would love to find out who these people are, because I would like to register my vote on a few of the more important issues.
The worst possible scenario is leaving the evolution of technology to corporations. What in the hell will we do if Bill Gates becomes best positioned to lead our world? (as if he's not 2/3rds the way there already) He's got the money, he owns the desktop OS. If he buys Intel, we'll start filing taxes by our Pentium serial number. (owning any other processor constitutes tax evasion)
I realize that this is a lot for one candidate. So to summarize, I would ask the question,
At the recently exposed surface of earth's exact magnetic south, scientists have just discovered an electronic device that dates back to the very creation of our planet. It appears to be a button with a blinking red light. There is no visible indications of any kind anywhere on or near this "button". There appears to be some type of conduit underneath the button, and from what scientists can tell, it reaches all the way down to the core of the earth.
"One nation of the earth entirely connected with broadband access for all. One government with one central database. One set of laws and one language. Spiritually grounded in science. With all the values of democracy, and everyone is free."
Provide details for the next phase of the project along with budgetary numbers and timeframes for completion. Also, please estimate tasks, budget and timeframes should you be selected for the second phase. Estimate rough budgetary numbers for the entire project along with your best guess for a completion date.
The successful bidder must receive a majority vote from the earth's population. In the event that no candidate receives majority vote, this project will be put on hold until such time that a majority vote can be received.
Now that we've overcome software bloat, the next hurdle is Internet congestion. Broadband has the potential to again drive the need for bigger and better.
Isn't it about time for three dimensional, virtual reality on the net? Kindof like avatar on major steroids. This would be the "next killer application".
The biggest problem for most residential apartment buildings is the cost of wiring their building for ethernet. The second problem is that most apartment buildings don't have enough interested people willing to pay between $25 to $50 a month for internet access.
In a building already wired for ethernet, you could provide SDSL T1 for a couple hundred bucks a month, then distribute via 24-port ethernet hub. Together the DSL router and the hub would cost under $1000 a month. All the users would require is an ethernet adapter. But that's about as cheap as you can get it.
If your building is cabled with regular CAT3 phone lines, you could still provide broadband access using DSL within the building. The problem here is a higher cost per-user because now each requires a DSL modem or router plus ethernet card and the building requires a DSL mux. Also, now you must provide a T1 to uplink the mini-DSLAM back to your backbone router. This will drive recurring costs to $1000 a month or so depending on mileage to your POP.
AccessLan claims to have an SDSL mini-DSLAM which could uplink via SDSL. Unfortunately, it's proprietary and only supports their DSLAM's.
I'm working with a property manager who wants to run ethernet for his tenants to a DSL uplink. He has about 100 tenants in his building. Each tenant owns their unit, not one cost less than a million. He's having a tough time convincing his board that he can find enough interested tenants to fill a 24-port hub. He's also trying to get the cost closer to what AOL costs. (seems to be what is considered the threshold for what an average user will pay for internet)
The majority of the population is not connected to the internet. The majority of those who are connected, do so via analog modems. And they are unwilling to pay any more for internet access. Then there is a small minority who would like to share the cost of a 100Mbps pipe. (and others who would rather have the whole thing for themselves)
The telephone network was built on peoples need for telephones. The internet is being built on peoples need for email. Unfortunately, that need is being met in most cases by the telephone network and analog modems.
So you're saying that only 1 in 10 have no kids? Is this the same 1 in 10 that are overly stressed at the office?
I know it's a stretch, but does your goal of retiring 10 years before me sustain you through those tough days? Or do you think that management should provide a vehicle for you to vent your stress?
I'm not trying to say that I'm better because I have kids, but as it relates to stress in the workplace, it is likely that the 1 in 10 that is overly stressed is so because of pressure to provide for their family. People who don't have kids, likely don't understand the excessive drive towards advancement and more stress.
If you're single and successful, and retiring 10 years before me, then you can't possibly understand what the stress is really about. Therefore, you really aren't part of the problem. Therefore, you don't have much reason to post on this topic. (except maybe to add more stress to the struggling parents)
Can you picture the headline? "Single man loses job along with BMW and stock options. Forced to work until 65. Goes ballistic and shoots 10."
Religious fundamentalists die for their God. I would die for my family. What would you die for?
Lions kill Gazelles in order to survive. The gazelles may not find the lions occupation to be very worthwhile, but I'm sure the lions cubs do.
Maybe you have no spouse, kids, mortgage, car payments, etc... Those of us who do, understand better that our hard work makes a difference to our families.
I'm sure I can find a less stressful job, but less stress usually equates to less money. With less money, I would stress about how I'm going to pay for my kids college education.
I'm an adult, and I understand that my employer doesn't pay me to meditate in my cubicle for 15 minutes every hour. To the contrary, I beleive that if I work harder and better than anyone in my office, I have a better chance for making even more money. (at a cost of even more stress)
Everyday I sacrifice a piece of myself for the benefit of my family. That to me, is a good enough reason to get out of bed each day.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but wouldn't it be funny if this one were true? If they slipped in a true story amidst a dozen pranks.
"That's a good one Mr Clinton. For a minute there, you had me believing you actually had sex with one of your interns"
The ILEC is to blame for American DSL's slow speed. (as well as lengthy installation, frequent outages, etc... But that's another story)
They provide dry copper to the competition (i.e. Covad) for slightly less than they charge retail for complete (albeit pathetic) DSL. Covad tacks on (not enough) for their own profit, to which the ISP then adds (not enough) margin.
DSL ISP's are struggling to provide what they currently do and still profit. Providing more bandwidth for the same money will never happen until the ILEC's reduce their charges. (won't happen)
The ILEC's can provide more for less, but why would they? They currently have the Lion's share of DSL circuits, and will certainly outlast all the competing (failing) DLEC's (dot bombs).
There's so much more to this subject. It's such a sad example of the problem with monopolies.
But to the point of the original question:
The cost per Mbps of American DSL is most heavily influenced by the tarrifs imposed by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier. And it's not because it costs them the most. It's not because they add the most or any value. They charge that much because they can. Afterall, it's their copper.
The DSL war between the Bell's and the ISP's was over before it ever started. The rules of engagement (the Telecom Reform Act of 1996) heavily favored the Bell's. The courageous ISP's fought hard, and suffered heavy casualties. The Bell's survived mostly unscathed.
For those ISP's still fighting the war, the phrase "Dead man walking" comes to mind.
And yet, Verizon will still not provision any DSL circuit beyond 18,000 feet.
So "GoLong" "GetsScrewed"
I think the worst is yet to come in the "DSL Shakeout"
I work at a small DSL-only ISP in the New York area. We don't have much for services, but we provide good performance at a decent price. (Our DS-3 is loaded at 3 percent for those complaining of over-subscription) I provide technical assistance, with never a waiting time.
We could be profitable if we had more customers, but unfortunately it costs a lot of money to get customers. Advertising is a significant part of the equation. Consider that we need about 1000 users to be profitable. That would require about 2500 users to sign-up since more than half will cancel before they're ever installed.
Unfortunately, last year cost everyone a ton of money. With everyone giving away routers and setups, and charging barely enough to cover their Covad bills, it's no wonder why so many are now failing.
Those with the deep pockets are now playing a waiting game, hoping to be the last one standing.
I don't blame Covad for doing what they can to become profitable, but I'm not sure that cutting off their ISP's is a wise choice. Read how many people here have found cable to be a more desirable alternative.
If in the end, it is the one with the most money who wins, then it will likely be the ILEC who will be the last one standing. Then they will be free to raise rates, and provide even less service than they do today.
I think the government is to blame for not going far enough in the Telecom Reform of '96. The ILEC has stretched that weakness to the furthest extent possible. They suck to the furthest extent of the law. Covad is to blame for not doing enough to help ailing ISP's. If we're to blame for not running our business well enough, we're in good company.
I don't want to offend anyone, but you guys out there who didn't know you needed a NIC card to get DSL. Those of you who ordered from five companys, and then cancelled all but the first one installed. Those of you who ordered ADSL for your business with 50 users. You're part of the problem as well. I won't name names, you know who you are.
When I was young, so were computers. But frequent was the discussion of the role of technology in society. It was always Orwellian discussions from people who understood not the first thing about computers, but feared their potential (and nuclear holocaust). In the past 30 years our understanding of technology has improved dramatically. Yet I find it strange that we no longer engage in discussions of technology's role in society as a whole, or in government specifically. As the constant evolution of technology weaves an ever tighter integration between private and public information systems.
How far is too far, and who is deciding (corporations/capitalism/we'll let it find it's own equillibrium)? I personally see no other alternative to an entirely integrated world. Maybe not soon, but it does seem inevitable. We are only scratching the surface in an area where all laws are unprecedented. As unpalatable as the idea is, the internet will not remain unregulated.
What is the future for anonymity on the internet? When will it be possible to execute a legally binding contract electronically? How long before flaming is considered a hate crime, spamming considered assault? How long before transmitting a virus is considered terrorism? How long before emailing porn is considered rape? What level of encryption is necessary to protect national security? (is anything less treason-punishable by death) Can someone own the exclusive rights to a pattern of bits? If it's a document, a book, a song? What if it's a person? How long before our genetic code will be stored magnetically? (Talk about identity theft) How long before we are able to opt-out of the government and taxes? How long before we can vote online? How long before I can post a Request For Comments for a law? When can I participate on a virtual jury? (OJ comes to mind)
How long is it going to take before I can review my life's profile online? (I would like to see my account status include all taxes paid and owed, police records, credit reports, medical records educational records)
When will I see the checkbox to select "yes, I would like to receive regular updates on my governments progress"? (would you like the details or just the summary? would you like that to include a Gantt chart with estimated versus actual progress?)
Click here if you would like an elected official to contact you.
How close are we towards this reality, and why do we continue to close the gap on these issues without discussing their impact on society? If I were to run an IT project the way we run this country, I would be fired. We are running without a plan, and addressing the situations as they arise. Why didn't we know about damage to the ozone layer before we began destroying it? Why do we continue it's destruction without sufficiently understanding the problem? (maybe it's good for us, but it's probably too late to fix if it's not) We do this because people in general are not smart enough, or do not care enough to understand the impact from these issues. People instead are content to live their lives oblivious to the situation around them. Things really are much more like the movie The Matrix than anyone seems willing to admit. (which I suppose is redundant) My utter amazement however, is that in this particular forum, there is so much discussion about, well... everything else.
We're all animals living in a zoo. We're trying to figure out who to vote for as head zookeeper giving careful consideration to the one who will make our cage the nicest with the best food and water. (What are your plans Mr Gore relative to the recent lack of fresh vegetation? And Mr Bush, your thoughts on urinating in the watering hole?) I want to know which one is in favor of unlocking the gates!
Who are the real leaders of the Information Age? Is there a thinktank somewhere considering all of these issues? I would love to find out who these people are, because I would like to register my vote on a few of the more important issues.
The worst possible scenario is leaving the evolution of technology to corporations. What in the hell will we do if Bill Gates becomes best positioned to lead our world? (as if he's not 2/3rds the way there already) He's got the money, he owns the desktop OS. If he buys Intel, we'll start filing taxes by our Pentium serial number. (owning any other processor constitutes tax evasion)
I realize that this is a lot for one candidate. So to summarize, I would ask the question,
What the fuck are your plans for technology?
At the recently exposed surface of earth's exact magnetic south, scientists have just discovered an electronic device that dates back to the very creation of our planet. It appears to be a button with a blinking red light. There is no visible indications of any kind anywhere on or near this "button". There appears to be some type of conduit underneath the button, and from what scientists can tell, it reaches all the way down to the core of the earth.
Shall we push it?
"One nation of the earth entirely connected with broadband access for all. One government with one central database. One set of laws and one language. Spiritually grounded in science. With all the values of democracy, and everyone is free."
Provide details for the next phase of the project along with budgetary numbers and timeframes for completion. Also, please estimate tasks, budget and timeframes should you be selected for the second phase. Estimate rough budgetary numbers for the entire project along with your best guess for a completion date.
The successful bidder must receive a majority vote from the earth's population. In the event that no candidate receives majority vote, this project will be put on hold until such time that a majority vote can be received.
Now that we've overcome software bloat, the next hurdle is Internet congestion. Broadband has the potential to again drive the need for bigger and better.
Isn't it about time for three dimensional, virtual reality on the net? Kindof like avatar on major steroids. This would be the "next killer application".
The biggest problem for most residential apartment buildings is the cost of wiring their building for ethernet. The second problem is that most apartment buildings don't have enough interested people willing to pay between $25 to $50 a month for internet access.
In a building already wired for ethernet, you could provide SDSL T1 for a couple hundred bucks a month, then distribute via 24-port ethernet hub. Together the DSL router and the hub would cost under $1000 a month. All the users would require is an ethernet adapter. But that's about as cheap as you can get it.
If your building is cabled with regular CAT3 phone lines, you could still provide broadband access using DSL within the building. The problem here is a higher cost per-user because now each requires a DSL modem or router plus ethernet card and the building requires a DSL mux. Also, now you must provide a T1 to uplink the mini-DSLAM back to your backbone router. This will drive recurring costs to $1000 a month or so depending on mileage to your POP.
AccessLan claims to have an SDSL mini-DSLAM which could uplink via SDSL. Unfortunately, it's proprietary and only supports their DSLAM's.
I'm working with a property manager who wants to run ethernet for his tenants to a DSL uplink. He has about 100 tenants in his building. Each tenant owns their unit, not one cost less than a million. He's having a tough time convincing his board that he can find enough interested tenants to fill a 24-port hub. He's also trying to get the cost closer to what AOL costs. (seems to be what is considered the threshold for what an average user will pay for internet)
The majority of the population is not connected to the internet. The majority of those who are connected, do so via analog modems. And they are unwilling to pay any more for internet access. Then there is a small minority who would like to share the cost of a 100Mbps pipe. (and others who would rather have the whole thing for themselves)
The telephone network was built on peoples need for telephones. The internet is being built on peoples need for email. Unfortunately, that need is being met in most cases by the telephone network and analog modems.
So you're saying that only 1 in 10 have no kids? Is this the same 1 in 10 that are overly stressed at the office?
I know it's a stretch, but does your goal of retiring 10 years before me sustain you through those tough days? Or do you think that management should provide a vehicle for you to vent your stress?
I'm not trying to say that I'm better because I have kids, but as it relates to stress in the workplace, it is likely that the 1 in 10 that is overly stressed is so because of pressure to provide for their family. People who don't have kids, likely don't understand the excessive drive towards advancement and more stress.
If you're single and successful, and retiring 10 years before me, then you can't possibly understand what the stress is really about. Therefore, you really aren't part of the problem. Therefore, you don't have much reason to post on this topic. (except maybe to add more stress to the struggling parents)
Can you picture the headline? "Single man loses job along with BMW and stock options. Forced to work until 65. Goes ballistic and shoots 10."
Religious fundamentalists die for their God. I would die for my family. What would you die for?
Lions kill Gazelles in order to survive. The gazelles may not find the lions occupation to be very worthwhile, but I'm sure the lions cubs do.
Maybe you have no spouse, kids, mortgage, car payments, etc... Those of us who do, understand better that our hard work makes a difference to our families.
I'm sure I can find a less stressful job, but less stress usually equates to less money. With less money, I would stress about how I'm going to pay for my kids college education.
I'm an adult, and I understand that my employer doesn't pay me to meditate in my cubicle for 15 minutes every hour. To the contrary, I beleive that if I work harder and better than anyone in my office, I have a better chance for making even more money. (at a cost of even more stress)
Everyday I sacrifice a piece of myself for the benefit of my family. That to me, is a good enough reason to get out of bed each day.