Topic 'So for semi-real internet in rual areas' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:04:43 EDT

BiggA posted : Then you're not going to have the content. You could be successful at small scale, but it won't replace traditional media, and not if you tie it to some sort of physical distribution medium.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:09:45 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by BiggA:

Right keep on dreaming. The fact is that when you get into content, you're not going to get the deals you want, and a small ISP can't get into content in any meaningful way anyways. And, unfortunately, fiber way out there isn't likely to make money. The exception is an area that's out there but not super far out there that is so underserved now that you'd get a large market share, unlike FIOS, which was put in relatively rich suburban areas that were already well served by cable, and full of dumb rich people who apparently don't realize that FIOS is so utterly superior in every way to cable.

You seem to think I would be getting into content like I'd be redistributing what's being currently made by the current producers, song writers, directors, screen play writers, etc, and that's not at all what I had in mind, but thanks for trying to kill my dream you didn't kill :D

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:40:58 EDT

BiggA posted : Right keep on dreaming. The fact is that when you get into content, you're not going to get the deals you want, and a small ISP can't get into content in any meaningful way anyways. And, unfortunately, fiber way out there isn't likely to make money. The exception is an area that's out there but not super far out there that is so underserved now that you'd get a large market share, unlike FIOS, which was put in relatively rich suburban areas that were already well served by cable, and full of dumb rich people who apparently don't realize that FIOS is so utterly superior in every way to cable.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:01:40 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by iansltx:

How do you think the revenue, monthly, picture would look fot FTTP in the area you would want to deploy it, and how would that compare to the capex/opex of such a network?

To be clear, I have no intention of shooting such things down. It's just a question of whether you can get enough people signed up for enough money to make things work...particularly important if you don't want to do a traditional triple play.

Actually, if I could get everything set to my goal of what I'd want to create, I'm pretty certain a lot of people would want to sign up, and not just for the ISP part of the service, but the part that replaces TV/Radio-Music/Movies as well, and even more (I have more ideas I'm just not willing to let them go in detail so that someone doesn't end up stealing them lol) but what I'm talking about creating would almost compete with just about everything on the internet today, in a new way that's easy for people to use, and convenient, as well as possibly even adding features people haven't even thought about yet.

I have a few things coming up that may actually provide me with a family member who has the money to backup what I'm trying to do here soon, so we'll just have to see where that goes, if so I'll probably be posting on here for beta testers and etc, but it's just going to take more time to talk to them about it and keep providing ideas.

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:24:17 EDT

iansltx posted : FTTP is cool, however you probably already know how much that sort of thing costs. How do you think the revenue, monthly, picture would look fot FTTP in the area you would want to deploy it, and how would that compare to the capex/opex of such a network?

Investors are investing for a rate of return of some sort, not just charity :)

To be clear, I have no intention of shooting such things down. It's just a question of whether you can get enough people signed up for enough money to make things work...particularly important if you don't want to do a traditional triple play.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:23:40 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by iansltx:

Got a business plan? :)

I only say this because I actually have a business plan sitting around for a wireless ISP that I built a little over a year ago. It's specific to my area though (central TX) and market research that I've done there, so it probably wouldn't help you any.

No I don't have a business plan, but I wouldn't mind creating one especially if I could find the investors, but if I did this then I'd want to start a new wireline only preferably complete FTTP network. My goal wouldn't be just to provide people with internet access with super fast download and upload speeds (Head on compete with FiOS on speeds and price) but to pretty much create a network that would completely replace the TV/Radio-Music/Movies content delivery system of today with a system for tomorrow.

I have a lot of dreams, if I can ever get the funding I'm positive I can make them work and make them something, however I'll probably never get the chance to implement these things in my lifetime, guess that's just how it goes though :/

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Sat, 07 Jul 2012 08:47:20 EDT

BiggA posted : Not all areas do. And we're not talking about areas outside the city limits. Suburban and exurban areas have cable and usually DSL or FIOS/U-Verse. It's the legitimately rural areas that we're talking about here. Not that it makes it any less important to get real internet out there though.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:25:51 EDT

wilburyan posted : people who life a few miles from city limits likely have much cheaper alternatives... typically wireless. (not cellular... usually 2.4ghz or 900mhz)

I can name 5 different wireless providers in my area... they are more expensive than DSL or cable within city limits... but WAY more economical than Sat. (much lower ping times too)

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:22:36 EDT

iansltx posted : Sorry, shift key fail. Meant VZ+VZ+Exede.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:18:49 EDT

iansltx posted : Got a business plan? :)

I only say this because I actually have a business plan sitting around for a wireless ISP that I built a little over a year ago. It's specific to my area though (central TX) and market research that I've done there, so it probably wouldn't help you any.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:19:16 EDT

BiggA posted : Or $30/mo for unlimited if they were smart enough to get an unlimited plan on Verizon LTE before the AOL's ended.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:58:15 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by tshirt:

I understand the dream of doing it better and cheaper too. but remember the CEO works for the stockholders under the direction of the board not the other way.
The CEO with the best envisioned plan on earth goes no where if hr/she can't convince that limited group that it is to the benefit of the investors.
Should you convince them the cost and risk is worth the PR and will benefit "the company" in the long term you will likely be allowed to proceed, FIOS as we know came from such a plan, technically brilliant, financially marginal so far, and somebody doesn't work there anymore.

Yeah and I understand that, and as a CEO I'd be trying to sell the stockholders on ideas like our own equivalent to Netflix, or something else for generating revenue and ROI, I wouldn't be trying to limit my consumers choice and etc, and I'd hope in this situation that I also wouldn't be having to deal with also have a Cable/Satelite/etc TV network so I wouldn't have to worry about "Oh well I'm trying to do this over the internet so I can't do this, this or that because it will compete with my TV business"

Or maybe even I'd attempt to convince the investors that we should build or partner with someone to build an alternate to TV the traditional way over the internet that still provides ease of use and a nice remote to hook to the TV to compete with ourselves and everyone else, really the possibilities are endless when you really think about it.

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:40:16 EDT

BF69 posted :

said by Gandalf4503:

Yep, but they've got these people by the balls. If they want any semblance of "high speed internet" then their options are limited until someone builds to them, or they move somewhere that is actually populated.

I'm not talking about some lone farmer out in the middle of nowhere. I am talking about people that live literally from a few feet to a couple of miles from CITY limits.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:38:40 EDT

BF69 posted :

said by iansltx:

Are you volunteering to start an ISP that offers something better than VZ+VZ=exede? :)

I didn't say VZ+VZ=Excede. I said VZ+VZ+Excede=semi-normal internet.

Veriozn's Homefusion is better than Excede if you are comparing the two which I wasn't.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:33:34 EDT

tshirt posted : I understand the dream of doing it better and cheaper too. but remember the CEO works for the stockholders under the direction of the board not the other way.
The CEO with the best envisioned plan on earth goes no where if hr/she can't convince that limited group that it is to the benefit of the investors.
Should you convince them the cost and risk is worth the PR and will benefit "the company" in the long term you will likely be allowed to proceed, FIOS as we know came from such a plan, technically brilliant, financially marginal so far, and somebody doesn't work there anymore.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:12:47 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by tshirt:

said by mmay149q:

... about how the company is run I'd attempt to buy them out and replace them with non-douchebags...

Matt

Or they might force you out and be a profitable and ongoing bunch of douchebags, but at least providing alternete service

It might put me in jail, but with the cash a CEO makes, hopefully I'd have enough money to run my own ad campaign offering customers a way out of the BS by me personally paying for their cancellation fee's and etc so the company completely fails... If the company can't compete and can't do it better than 90% of the other companies out there, it doesn't need to exist in my honest opinion...

Matt

P.S. Before you start telling me stuff like "I bet you'd say different once you had millions of dollars" I've turned down multiple jobs in the past offering double what I get paid currently because I didn't want to work in an atmosphere where I felt I needed to kill myself after 2 weeks of being there...
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:05:23 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by Linklist:

said by mmay149q:

If you could get the funding? From where? A bank? And they would then own your butt. Guess what, people don't lend you money without expecting to be paid back and with interest. And they don't lend money without strings attached.

And the Venture Capitalists have even more strings than a bank.

Yeah I already know that, and that's what negotiations are for while getting the funding, and etc, maybe negotiate a clause stating there will never caps on a hard line network, the network will be completely free and open with no traffic shaping for any one protocol should it be for or against the protocol.

And really, as much as I hate to say it (because I'd certainly hate for the ISP to fail) I'd hope that if I should get voted out, and this kind of mentality (horribly raping your customers when it makes no sense) became the norm for the company I helped build with that funding, that all the customers would leave and run them out of business, just like I wish consumers would do now, yes it would suck to not have internet for a while, but I literally wish there was a movement where people would just stop paying their bills/cancel their service with their ISP/TV plans for multiple months, that's the only way these investors and companies are going to learn to change their tactics...

See everyone believes the answer to these kind of crappy deals is to get the government involved because they always want to go the easy route without having to lose service or etc, but if American's would actually grow some balls and start cancelling their services immediately by the thousands until the company changed its position on the issue to something more consumer friendly (and continue doing this every time the company tried to implement the same thing in a different shiny new coat) most of the issues we face or gripe about today would be pretty much non-existant...

Anyway, it's not like I'd expect you or the real Mitt Romney to understand a free market if it slapped you in the face with a 2x4... in fact, it's supporters such as yourselves that have helped cause most of the problems we face today...

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:22:51 EDT

tshirt posted :

said by mmay149q:

... about how the company is run I'd attempt to buy them out and replace them with non-douchebags...

Matt

Or they might force you out and be a profitable and ongoing bunch of douchebags, but at least providing alternete service

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:16:45 EDT

tshirt posted :

said by ISurfTooMuch:

If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

It could have been a legal aggrement with the building owner or only being allowed to "wrap" one side of a building. Hard to know without details.
As far as telcos pushing wireless, it's true it is easier, faster, cheaper and higher priced...which is part of the formula that will eventually make it worthwhile (profitable) for cable-other wrieline or other better technology to build out.
Cable companies very much want/need to build out into new markets IF they can see a positive return on it. existing markets are saturating on standard products (HSI,CATV ,VoIP) but nobody can afford to sink money into areas that will have a negetive return for the forseeable future weather it's low density or excess competition, or gov't price controls.
Any program that alters that balance temporarily (gov't incentive usually) may speed build outs, but will create other problems if the incentive ends before actual market forces reach the balance point. You can see the effect as Gov't begins to ease out of universal phone access leaving a telco plant that can't support operational costs let alone next gen upgrades.

It 'is time for gov't to consider how much cost shifting from profitable areas to unprofitable rural areas ratepayers can and will practially support over the VERY long term required to pay of newgen plants. and even more important does supporting current nextgen plant expandtion, potentially cripple upcoming possibly better solutions of 10's of years.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:52:05 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by mmay149q:

If you could get the funding? From where? A bank? And they would then own your butt. Guess what, people don't lend you money without expecting to be paid back and with interest. And they don't lend money without strings attached.

And the Venture Capitalists have even more strings than a bank.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:02:32 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by iansltx:

Are you volunteering to start an ISP that offers something better than VZ+VZ=exede? :)

If I could get the funding, I more than certainly would, but I'd also be the major stock holder, and if the other stock holders didn't like what I had to say about how the company is run I'd attempt to buy them out and replace them with non-douchebags...

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:59:46 EDT

mmay149q posted :

said by BF69:

So 95 GB for "only" $540 a month. Meanwhile those that just live a few miles away can pay $50 for 250 GB and higher speeds. That's fucked up.

It's blunt, but so true, now if we can just hear the news media start saying this over the air live to America's shock, maybe a lot of these problems will be fixed :D

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!! :D

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:30:59 EDT

ISurfTooMuch posted : Yeah, but, in most areas, the wireline providers are the phone company and the cable company. The phone company would be in the best position to build out into these areas, since they already have copper there, but Verizon and AT&T are already pushing wireless specifically because it's more profitable to do so. It's in their best interests not to extend wired broadband into those areas, since it would cut into their wireless business. As for the cable companies, most of them seem content to service the areas they have, only expanding into an area once it's turned into a densely-populated suburb. I once had a friend whose apartment building was only partially served by Knology, who was overbuilding the incumbent cable company. And when I say partially served, I mean that their service stopped at the apartment across the hall from him, and they absolutely refused to cross the hallway to reach his place. Not a large exterior landing or breezeway, but an interior hall, and a narrow one at that. If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:05:03 EDT

iansltx posted : Are you volunteering to start an ISP that offers something better than VZ+VZ=exede? :)

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:59:10 EDT

tshirt posted :

said by BF69:

one needs

Excede 35 GB tier $220
HomeFusion 30 GB tier $120
Verizon data only plan for USB dongle. 30 GB for $200

So 95 GB for "only" $540 a month. Meanwhile those that just live a few miles away can pay $50 for 250 GB and higher speeds. That's fucked up.

But the high price is what eventually drives wireline providers to cover and area...once the population (potential customer) density reaches X and the cost per person for bandwidth equals Y it becomes practical to overbuild the existing low rate telephone system (it's still an overbuild even if the same company replaces/upgrades copper pairs with coax or fiber)

Satellite is a temporary stopgap for low density or remote areas (yes it is still remote even a few miles out of town)

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:32:28 EDT

Gandalf4503 posted : Yep, but they've got these people by the balls. If they want any semblance of "high speed internet" then their options are limited until someone builds to them, or they move somewhere that is actually populated.

So for semi-real internet in rual areas

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:27:10 EDT

BF69 posted : one needs

Excede 35 GB tier $220
HomeFusion 30 GB tier $120
Verizon data only plan for USB dongle. 30 GB for $200

So 95 GB for "only" $540 a month. Meanwhile those that just live a few miles away can pay $50 for 250 GB and higher speeds. That's fucked up.