Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
 ·Speakeasy
| Hmm
I believe the reason Earthlink is doing all these Wi-Fi deployment services over WiFi is because they want to have a last mile they can control. Meaning they will push customers over from DSL to wireless which they can benefit from the cost savings and Earthlink can slowly start eliminating DSL customers to WiFi customers.
That way they also have room for expansion in speed's unlike DSL which currently while ADSL2+ is nice WiFi can currently and probably deliver more and at a cheaper cost.
It seems that companies are starting to realize that the last mile is truly a mess and that the easiest way for them to reach there customer's without ever having to worry on laying expensive systems and using wireless. They can lay something that's sold almost on every laptop today and some desktop's. Which is why I believe Earthlink chose WiFi, and once 802.11N could upgrade to that with backward compatibility with 802.11B/G devices.
The age of DSL is slowly going away, might as well sell my ADSL2+ modem before it's worth less than the socks I am wearing.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. |
|
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
| See what no one understands is if the contiue using Tropos stoff the most ANYONE will see on an 802.11b network will be 5.5 megs over the air. Now load up all the nodes with all those "DSL" customers its going to bog down miserably trying to share 5.5 megs to say TOPS 30 cusotmers if your lucky. You do the math NOT ENOUGH BANDWIDTH..
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor |
|
pmizelll
Premium
join:2003-08-13
Houston, TX
| reply to Michieru
Unlike other Muni-Fi deals, the project is not being funded by city taxes rather Earthlink is footing the bill and recouping the cost by selling access (to local ISP's > consumer) and through ad revenue.
"The agreement sets a wholesale rate of $12 per subscriber per month, which the builder of the network would sell to various Internet service providers, White said. Those ISPs would add a profit margin to the base price and sell access to residents and businesses." |
|
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
·Speakeasy
| reply to viperm
I never really tried having several wireless computers transmit all at once. But to be fair capacity is not that much of an issue since WiFi only covers a small area.
But the last thing we all need to see is a Linksys dangling from it's power cable from a tower and basically that's where your internets is coming from.
I am sure in all honesty though think Earthlink has some sort of solution towards that problem otherwise they would not be deploying such networks unless they had money to literally throw away.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. |
|
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Charter Pipeline
·Grande Communicati..
 ·Vonage
edit:
February 13th, @06:11PM
| reply to pmizelll
I didn't see where advertisements came in. I just read that Houston builds it ($60 million contract), Earthlink sells it's bandwidth wholesale to other local ISP's (maybe startups?) for $12/month per subscriber, the local ISP's put a price on top for profit margin, and the city of Houston re-coups the cost by getting a 3% cut of revenue.
Here's a better explanation in the Houston Chronicle:
»www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/fro···696.html
That would be cool to have wifi access for $20/month instead of paying Verizon $50/month. |
|
