Wireless Regulation Matters Even More, Now

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: December 16, 2005 9:38:04 AM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Wireless Regulation Matters Even More, Now
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Thomas Leavitt.  DLH]

> From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas () thomasleavitt org>
> Date: December 16, 2005 5:30:37 AM PST
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Wireless Regulation Matters Even More, Now
>
> Dewayne,
>
>  After reading this article, I was inspired to repeat the research I'd
> done on alternatives to DSL and Cable earlier this year, when I  
> moved my
> company into new offices, and no longer had "Ethernet to the Internet"
> via an in-building connection to my ISP (and thence directly to the
> Internet backbone). The results were just as disappointing today, as
> they were then.
>
>  I live in Santa Cruz, CA, less than an hour's drive from the heart of
> Silicon Valley. The "one path for packets that hasn't been  
> monopolized"
> offers me an unappetizing menu of choices, starting at a minimum of
> $99/mo. for a fraction of the capacity offered by my local ISP's
> rebranding of SBC's DSL network. This is hardly an "alternative". I'd
> abandon my DSL and wireline phone for a wireless broadband network
> connection and VOIP in a heartbeat... but not for more than twice what
> I'm paying now (roughly $65-70/mo. between the DSL and the wireline
> metered rate phone I use only for incoming phone calls and outgoing
> faxes) and a fraction of the bandwidth.
>
>  Extensive Googling yielded perhaps a half-dozen alternatives that at
> least theoretically offered service in my area... of the three (maybe
> four) I was able to actually find pricing for (among quite a number  
> who
> have simply disappeared and had their web site URL's snatched up by
> traffic mongers), the best deal available was from Etheric  
> Networks, at
> $99/mo. for a "small office/home office" connection... and, in my  
> area,
> actually, their rates are $129 or $149 for their lowest tier of  
> service
> (750 kbps guaranteed, bursting to 1 mbps, with a quota of 55.1 GB).  
> See:
> http://www.etheric.net/soho.html
>
>  Compare that to the $29.99/mo. (plus another $3-4 in fees) I pay  
> for my
> Cruzio.com 3.0 DSL connection (rebranded SBC Internet, which I believe
> sells for $5/mo. less direct). "Download speeds of 1.5mbps to 3.0mbps;
> upload speeds of 384kbps to 512kbps."
> http://www.cruzio.com/services/highspeed_access/higher_speeds.html
>
>  I just ran their speed tester, and it says I'm getting 2.54 mbps
> downloads, and 458 mbps uploads. Cruzio doesn't give me a quota,  
> doesn't
> prevent me from reselling my bandwidth or running a server, etc.
>
>  You can argue that SBC isn't selling this service at their true cost,
> but the gap between the two is more like a chasm. This hardly
> constitutes a serious alternative.
>
>  I'd pay a reasonable premium (either in reduced capacity, or  
> increased
> monthly rates) to be able to cut the wires completely, but the market
> isn't delivering such an option yet, as far as I can tell. Anyone know
> why? What are the economics, such that it isn't feasible to offer me,
> say, 1.5 mbps downloads, and 256k uploads, with a reasonable level of
> reliability, for, say, $50/mo.? ...at which point, the economics of it
> become pretty compelling, as the cash price, when combined with
> commercial VOIP service, is in the ballpark relative what I'm  
> paying now
> (with the premium being an expected lower QOS and lower overall
> bandwidth).
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt

Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/