Its all coming together

[picopir8]

Im starting to get excited.  First it looks like on Tues, a city wide wifi project will be approved.  That alone would be good news but it gets better.  Sling has been showing off their slingbox software that runs on windows mobile devices PDAs/Cellphones).  Just think about it, you could go anywhere in the city and be able to control whatever is connected to the slingbox.  Leave home before remembering to DVR a show, simply whip out your PDA and tell it to record that show.  If you are board in a meeting or while waiting for an appointment, grab your PDA and watch TV just like you would at home.  Just think soon we could all leave our couches behind and be potatos anywhere in the city!

[mhz40]

In it's current form, wifi can't handle the concrete urban environment very well.  Not one word has been released regarding bandwidth.  I know you are excited, but concluding that one could 'watch tv' anytime soon in a wireless environment is a long baseless leap IMO.

[picopir8]

When I was watching news the other night they reported that the service was expected to be comparable with DSL.  Granted, what is projected and what is delivered could be two different things.  If they are able to provide service that is even remotely close to their projections then it could be promising.

[bradsmainsite]

TWC big wigs hearts must have dropped to their feet thinking OH MY GOSH NOW WHAT!
can't a guy make a decent living ripping off people with our rates, now what will
we have to come up with to hold people ransom with?

[Joseph S]

Very interesting news. Looking to see how this plays out. Sure wish Verizon would join the mix. Need competition to drive those prices down.

[mhz40]

When I was watching news the other night they reported that the service was expected to be comparable with DSL.  Granted, what is projected and what is delivered could be two different things.  If they are able to provide service that is even remotely close to their projections then it could be promising.

Very interesting news. Looking to see how this plays out. Sure wish Verizon would join the mix. Need competition to drive those prices down.

It's kind of funny... several years ago many were happy paying mucho bucks for DSL. Now that cable is the embedded leader, is cheaper than DSL originally was and a little faster --- all of a sudden it's seems like some sort of a rip-off because of a perceived lack of competition.
There already is a DSL provider providing DLS-like speeds. Granted; it's not wireless, but they are having to practically give it away.
One thing for sure is things will change...

[bradsmainsite]

Perceived lack of competition is that what you call it, or is it a misinformed consumer on the whole speed issue? :confused:

I have had 3 different internet speed options 1-Verizon DSL high speed for $30.00
per month.  2-TWC road runner high speed for $45.00 per month.  3-Verizon DSL 768 speed which I have now for $15.00 per month.

 READ these words there is no (perceivable) difference in my setup between these
3 options, so tell me what I think is overpriced and a rip off and I will tell you that anything that is advertised as high speed for over $30.00 per month is just plain to much and NO one will convince me otherwise because I proved it.  Now that being said there may be instances where speeds vary from home to home, but if your not trying the different (perceived) lack of competition than its no ones fault but your own!  Then go ahead and pay to much for no speed advantage, but for me I will use that money somewhere else.

[Joseph S]

Now that cable is the embedded leader, is cheaper than DSL originally was and a little faster --- all of a sudden it's seems like some sort of a rip-off because of a perceived lack of competition.

Faster is really dependent on what you're used to. I went from 28.8 to networked backbone to networked Internet 2 backbone to DSL and then to Cable. Obviously, the last two are leagues below the the service I had when I was practically feet from a pipeline to Chicago. DSL was only $40 when I signed up in 2000. Both were $45 when I signed up for cable which was faster. However, FIOS at its current price rates is something I'm really looking for. I want the speed and bandwidth options FIOS will bring.

[kevbeck122]

I can't wait until FIOS/lightspeed is offered around here.  $45 a month for 15m down/2 up.  Plus they offer IPTV options probably cheaper than cable.

[Mark Strube]

There's certainly more competition in the world of ISP's than there is in the world of cable television... speeds increasing and prices decreasing all the time.

[rant]
If you ever want to doubt the lack of competition as far as cable television service goes, take a look at how far the HD package has progressed, or your ever-increasing bill with the only added channels being useless shopping networks making more money for the cable company. It's a crummy situation these government-granted monopolies have gotten us into, the only out being satellite whose rates aren't much better due to cable not being much of a competitor.
[/rant]

[bradsmainsite]

Thank you Mark well put! :bow:

[mhz40]

Well, its a done deal.  The paper reported that the city will get 3% of revenues after year 3 or 4, which should bring them $330,000.  That equates to $11 Million a year in sales.  At $20/month (again, per reports in the paper), that means they expect to pickup just over 45,000 customers within the city in 3 years.  Sounds doable.
It will be interesting to see how many residential customers sign up.  For $50 you can buy your own router with integrated wifi and enjoy the speeds of DSL or cable.

[AndrewP]

If you compare $20 to $15 for DSL (and DSL is twice faster then the proposed WiFi), I think it is kind of expensive. With speeds around 500 it should not be more then $10.
But maybe it will bring TWC prices down and this is a good thing.

[picopir8]

I disagree.  You are not just paying for bandwidh, you are also paying for mobility.  I believe most people would be willing to pay more money to have internet access on a PDA or laptop anywhere in the city.  I would certainly get the service if it is expanded and my home is covered.  If my home is not covered, I would possibly still get it so I could use it around town.

[AndrewP]

I disagree.  You are not just paying for bandwidh, you are also paying for mobility.  I believe most people would be willing to pay more money to have internet access on a PDA or laptop anywhere in the city.  I would certainly get the service if it is expanded and my home is covered.  If my home is not covered, I would possibly still get it so I could use it around town.

For mobility I'll wait till Google will provide free WiFi. I don't mind some ads for free service.