Not necessarily - if the previous guy went bust financing the build-out, which you then inherit for a song, then you are in a better position than they were
Also, by lowering the price point, they can sell more units. If you sell to three people for $40/month where the previous guys only sold to one person at $75/month, you're making more money. And the $30-$40 price point is the sweet spot for high-speed Internet access, as shown by cable.
Which leads to the real question - what's the bandwidth on this, and how does it scale as you add users? Since it's 7 nodes per square mile, presumably that's all the density you need to scale to, but I didn't catch the bandwidth in the article... it said 128 Kbps minimum, but didn't say what it scaled up to...
It isn't that implausible if you allow catastrophic geological events, like a trench opening and the poor island hump on top of it suddenly being dropped
Of course, if something that catastrophic happened, I don't feel you'd be seeing pyramids, buildings, and roads 6000 years later - you'd be seeing a lot of rocks piled atop one another...
If a bank was FDIC insured, and their physical security was absolutely horrible, then the government would yank the insurance and effectively shut the bank down. Fortunately for the banks, the government isn't competent enough to rate their Internet security as they are the physical and fiscal security.
If no one ever lays the hammer down on something like this, people will never start to equate online security with the physical security they take for granted. And much better for the government to start policing itself before it makes more noises about policing the rest of us.
The fix is less competition, not more!
on
Why ADCo?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, at least someone is trying to solve the problem, but this isn't the way. Why? Because, as everyone here has pointed out, running cable is so expensive that it has to be subsidized. That's not the sort of environment where competition thrives.
The correct fix is to have a monopoly on cable distribution. One that isn't tied hip and hoof with voice/data/anything carriers. One that runs cables and manages access to the CO for all the carriers, be they ILEC or CLEC. No more games, no more favoritism.
The groundwork is there. The cable-laying portion of the ILECs has always subsidized with Universal Service Fees. We the people own a good portion of that copper and fiber! By now, anybody who hasn't figured out that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a failure is dead or heavily subsidized by the ILECs, so let'd go back, do it right, and rip the physical infrastructure out of the hands of the ILECs.
Outlook runs on top of Windows, which is not free. It's quite expensive.
Because of the way things are priced, companies usually end up buying Office, and therefore paying even more for Outlook.
If I understood the offer correctly, Microsoft offered to put computers in a lot of schools, where 20% was the hardware cost, and the other 80% of the money was required to put software on them. If you think Outlook is "free," you aren't paying the bills.
I don't see any problem with charging for the Exchange connector. Think of it as encouragement to go open source!
Let's say you're a small company with an Exchange server. You pay for Exchange. You pay for CALs. Then someone installs Evolution and lets some of your people access Exchange without buying into the whole MS-$$-desktop licensing (I'm thinking support people, especially). You're still paying something, though, to make Evolution work with Exchange.
Then someone says, "You know, Evolution would work just as well with Courier/Cyrus/whatever as an IMAP backend, and then we wouldn't have to pay for the Exchange server or the Exchange connectors.
And there's your incentive to go open source.
Also, this puts the onus of supporting Ximian on the corporations, who can afford it. If I want to use Evolution for myself to access my IMAP server, it's free. If I want to use it to get into Exchange at work, I get my boss to spring for a license. I'm happy, he's happy, Ximian stays in business.
Caveat: Exchange still wins in the corporation until Evolution + Open Source server XYZ can provide shared calendaring and scheduling.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily - if the previous guy went bust financing the build-out, which you then inherit for a song, then you are in a better position than they were
Also, by lowering the price point, they can sell more units. If you sell to three people for $40/month where the previous guys only sold to one person at $75/month, you're making more money. And the $30-$40 price point is the sweet spot for high-speed Internet access, as shown by cable.
Which leads to the real question - what's the bandwidth on this, and how does it scale as you add users? Since it's 7 nodes per square mile, presumably that's all the density you need to scale to, but I didn't catch the bandwidth in the article... it said 128 Kbps minimum, but didn't say what it scaled up to...
It isn't that implausible if you allow catastrophic geological events, like a trench opening and the poor island hump on top of it suddenly being dropped
Of course, if something that catastrophic happened, I don't feel you'd be seeing pyramids, buildings, and roads 6000 years later - you'd be seeing a lot of rocks piled atop one another...
need... more... information........
I agree. Think of it like a bank.
If a bank was FDIC insured, and their physical security was absolutely horrible, then the government would yank the insurance and effectively shut the bank down. Fortunately for the banks, the government isn't competent enough to rate their Internet security as they are the physical and fiscal security.
If no one ever lays the hammer down on something like this, people will never start to equate online security with the physical security they take for granted. And much better for the government to start policing itself before it makes more noises about policing the rest of us.
Well, at least someone is trying to solve the problem, but this isn't the way. Why? Because, as everyone here has pointed out, running cable is so expensive that it has to be subsidized. That's not the sort of environment where competition thrives.
The correct fix is to have a monopoly on cable distribution. One that isn't tied hip and hoof with voice/data/anything carriers. One that runs cables and manages access to the CO for all the carriers, be they ILEC or CLEC. No more games, no more favoritism.
The groundwork is there. The cable-laying portion of the ILECs has always subsidized with Universal Service Fees. We the people own a good portion of that copper and fiber! By now, anybody who hasn't figured out that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a failure is dead or heavily subsidized by the ILECs, so let'd go back, do it right, and rip the physical infrastructure out of the hands of the ILECs.
It sounds like they've only excavated three buildings so far. I'm betting that as they continue they'll find bodies
The fact that they found livestock implies that the inhabitants didn't have enough warning to make a clean getaway.
I'm not forgetting - I'm discounting.
Outlook runs on top of Windows, which is not free. It's quite expensive.
Because of the way things are priced, companies usually end up buying Office, and therefore paying even more for Outlook.
If I understood the offer correctly, Microsoft offered to put computers in a lot of schools, where 20% was the hardware cost, and the other 80% of the money was required to put software on them. If you think Outlook is "free," you aren't paying the bills.
I don't see any problem with charging for the Exchange connector. Think of it as encouragement to go open source!
Let's say you're a small company with an Exchange server. You pay for Exchange. You pay for CALs. Then someone installs Evolution and lets some of your people access Exchange without buying into the whole MS-$$-desktop licensing (I'm thinking support people, especially). You're still paying something, though, to make Evolution work with Exchange.
Then someone says, "You know, Evolution would work just as well with Courier/Cyrus/whatever as an IMAP backend, and then we wouldn't have to pay for the Exchange server or the Exchange connectors.
And there's your incentive to go open source.
Also, this puts the onus of supporting Ximian on the corporations, who can afford it. If I want to use Evolution for myself to access my IMAP server, it's free. If I want to use it to get into Exchange at work, I get my boss to spring for a license. I'm happy, he's happy, Ximian stays in business.
Caveat: Exchange still wins in the corporation until Evolution + Open Source server XYZ can provide shared calendaring and scheduling.