'No Incentive' For Fiber

Geeze, talk about quick to respond. I think this is why there has to be a national broadband infrastructure...I know it may sound dumb but what else is going to happen an increase in city deployment?? Of course this may not be the time to talk about more construction since the economy is in bad shape right now...
Erik
[text was edited by author 2003-09-10 09:26:31]

This only confirms the obvious for anyone who has seriously looked at FTTH. The numbers definitely don't work if you have to buy the bandwidth -- and now we see that even if the bandwidth is "free" -- the numbers don't work - mainly because we consumers just won't pay what FTTH is really worth.

The ONLY hope for FTTH lies in the hands of mavericks (like me!) Thanks SBC for my marching orders.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-10 09:38:54]

said by armyrebel4:

---

Of course this may not be the time to talk about more construction since the economy is in bad shape right now...

---

That is exactly the time for Government to spend on imporving our infrastructure. It creates jobs in the short term. It improves our infrastructure so that there can be a real, sustainable, recovery. Temporary spending to create jobs and make long term infrastructure improvements makes more sense during a recession than giving huge tax breaks to the rich (who already spend all they want to).

Where would you like the money to come from?

Are you willing to chip in for the $2000.00 it will take to get fiber to my Grandma's home?

said by sherpaboy:

---

Where would you like the money to come from?

Are you willing to chip in for the $2000.00 it will take to get fiber to my Grandma's home?

---

simple: take a portion of the 1 billion a week we are spending in the never ending war in Iraq and there you go.

first of all, if it wasnt for morons like you we would of done away with Iraq when that piece of crap Clinton was in office. 2nd of all fiber to home isnt that impossible www.switchpointnetworks.com

said by bobburn:

---

first of all, if it wasnt for morons like you we would of done away with Iraq when that piece of crap Clinton was in office. 2nd of all fiber to home isnt that impossible www.switchpointnetworks.com

---

clinton didn't get us into a never ending war now did he?

it's people like you who are too dense to see the real purpose of the war. just keep drinking your schlitz and look out your trailer window at the neighborhood rats every once in a while. is that your kid digging in the trash?

Nice troll sport.

said by sherpaboy:

---

Where would you like the money to come from?

Are you willing to chip in for the $2000.00 it will take to get fiber to my Grandma's home?

---

How about they take it out of the extra fees state governments were allowing the telcos for promises broken?

How many households are there in America?

Census data says about 120 million. OK

$2k each, means 240,000,000,000. Two Hundred Forty Billion to wire every household in America.

And I'd be willing to bet that if such a large infrastructure project was under way the prices of the equipment would drop due to mass production, so, it would probably cost less.

The first year of Iraqi occupation is estimated to cost us $170 billion. I don't know what the actual war cost, but it's safe to say this War has cost us as much as it would take to have Nationwide FTTH. The problem is, they are talking like we'll be in Iraq for 10 years.

Ouch.

Why aren't all you anti-Iraq types bitching about WWII and Korea costs? We're STILL in Germany and Japan. We're STILL in South Korea. Vietnam cost 12% of the U.S. economy while the war in Iraq is costing less than .5% of the U.S. economy.

Just more of the same liberal hypocrisy. Why don't we cut welfare expenditures by $170 billion to pay for it? Hell this new medicare prescription program is planned to cost $470 billion (and we all know the estimates for any entitlement are FAR below actual costs) alone.

Liberals seem to have no problem blowing BILLIONS on EVERYTHING EXCEPT national security interests.

"Why aren't all you anti-Iraq types bitching about WWII and Korea costs? We're STILL in Germany and Japan. We're STILL in South Korea."

LOTS of us bitch about those things. South Korea is a rich nation fully capable of defending itself. They don't even like America. The S. Korean president ran on an anti-American platform. They're far more afraid of Bush than of the N. Korean dictator.

"Liberals seem to have no problem blowing BILLIONS on EVERYTHING EXCEPT national security interests."

The Iraq war has nothing to do with national security - at least, not the security of *this* nation.

said by oliphant5:

---

Hell this new medicare prescription program is planned to cost $470 billion (and we all know the estimates for any entitlement are FAR below actual costs) alone.

---

Great idea! Since my tax dollars are going into something I will never see(medicare won't be around when I can get it) let's just put it into FTTH. Sorry to the senior community, but what goes around comes around. You want my money? Tough! I also want my money... to be spent in something that benefits me.

"What's that you say, old timer? You don't have any use for FTTH? Well, I have no use for medicare."

said by oliphant5:

---

Just more of the same liberal hypocrisy.

---

You are only looking at it in terms of economy. The liberals are mad because more and more soldiers are killed each day despite the fact that we have
1. Not captured Saddaam
2. Not found any "weapons of mass destruction" (the whole point of the war)

As far as national security is concerned, North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq, so why aren't we moving more troops there? Let France deal with Iraq Then the whole world will know what a bunch of screw-ups they truly are.

quote:

---

Great idea! Since my tax dollars are going into something I will never see(medicare won't be around when I can get it) let's just put it into FTTH. Sorry to the senior community, but what goes around comes around. You want my money? Tough! I also want my money... to be spent in something that benefits me.

"What's that you say, old timer? You don't have any use for FTTH? Well, I have no use for medicare."

---

Instead of getting back at old timers for screwing you with medicare by screwing them with FTTH, why don't you vote so that we can all spend our own money on what we want? Old Timers can spend it on Medicare and Techies can spend it on FTTH.

said by oliphant5:

---

Why aren't all you anti-Iraq types bitching about WWII and Korea costs? Liberals seem to have no problem blowing BILLIONS on EVERYTHING EXCEPT national security interests.

---

Yeah, join in, more "liberal" bashing, all the rage these days, right? Label everyone a liberal then attack.... Why did we go to war in Iraq? National Security, you say? BS. War on Terror? Whatever. Neither. Because they were weak, and an easy target for attack. Just because you believe George W. can do no wrong, don't attack everyone else for not buying the trumped up charges. As already said, we're there now, and we're gonna pay, the question is how much and for how long.

Yeah you're right. We should have taken the Clintonista approach...do nothing, let terrorism flourish and watch Americans die by the thousands around the world in WTC bombings, embassy bombings, barracks bombings, and U.S.S. Cole style bombings.

It would be just great to permit the spread of biological and radiological weapons...that would just thrill the liberals. Hell you must be overly glad to see what Clinton's "deal" with North Korea got us. Sure, he gave them billions but they won't develop nukes.

Liberals were all for going into Somalia, Bosnia (without UN approval I might add)...but no way, no freeing of millions of Arabs oppressed by a madman like Saddam. Women and girls being able to attend schools for the first time in years in Afganistan doesn't matter to you bleeding hearts.

It's just amazing to watch liberal hypocrisy in action.

And no, I don't agree with GW...I don't wear blinders like you Bush haters do. IMHO Bush is a hypocrite when it comes to Isreal. He should slam the door on trade with China until they address their human rights issues. He shouldn't have pushed the "farm bill". There are plenty of faults I find with this President, just as I found many things good about Clinton. I'm also watching the Democratic debates for a possible Bush alternative (like Leiberman) if Bush doesn't take care of some issues I think are major like border security especially as it pertains to California and over taxation of small business. I'm also glad to see Congress cutting off his dumbass overtime rules scheme. And I break with traditional conservatism when it comes to corporate "freedoms". I rail against anti-competitive practices of the telcos, cable operators and the RIAA all the time. I also rail against so-called "free trade" bullcrap. But when it comes to voting I'm never going to be 100% satisfied, but if it's a choice between a Democrat agreeing with 35% of what I believe in and a Republican agreeing with 65% of what I believe in...the Republican will get my vote.

I take one issue at a time, look at all the facts and form an opinion about the situation. You on the other hand take everything from the Bush sucks perspective...it's pretty sad actually. In order for "your side" to win, America must lose. In order for "your side" to win the economy can't grow the stock markets must tank. In order for "your side" to win, we must fail in Iraq. In order for "your side" to win there must be disaster in the Koreas. In order for "your side" to win, people must be dying in the streets. It's always about "how Bush sucks"...never their OWN ideas on how to solve the problems of worldwide terrorism, national security, corporate corruption, over taxation, failure for the government to serve the best interests of OUR nation for a change. Nope, only that whatever Bush does is wrong...before even reading past the first sentence.

But to debate politics in a forum filled with "powered by parents" types who haven't the life experience nor knowledge of history to have an opinion other than the ones their beard scratching do-nothing liberal professors programmed them with is pointless...so LPFM here.

BTW...the first (of what I'm sure will be many) Enron execs (Ben Glisan) is heading for a five year federal prison term. Ten more execs are facing trial. So much for the Bush and Enron B.S. If Bush was supposed to have "helped" Enron (like Clinton did with the billions in loans and special gov't projects)...well with a friend like Bush, Enron certainly didn't need any enemies.

Oh. I see oliphant has been suffering from more diarrhea of the fingers again. Just leave him be with his plastic sheets and his duct tape.

How 'about that scum Whitacre eh?

said by JakCrow:

---

Oh. I see oliphant has been suffering from more diarrhea of the fingers again. Just leave him be with his plastic sheets and his duct tape.

How 'about that scum Whitacre eh?

---

Don't like a post, use the "Hey Mods" button.

"Liberals were all for going into Somalia, Bosnia (without UN approval I might add)...but no way, no freeing of millions of Arabs oppressed by a madman like Saddam."

Funny how the Arabs hate us now more than ever. They were cheering for Saddam. "They love freedom as much as we do" is another one of Bush's (and Blair's) lies. Arabs regard freedom as a Jewish plot to weaken them.

said by Agent 86:

---

"Liberals were all for going into Somalia, Bosnia (without UN approval I might add)...but no way, no freeing of millions of Arabs oppressed by a madman like Saddam."

Funny how the Arabs hate us now more than ever. They were cheering for Saddam. "They love freedom as much as we do" is another one of Bush's (and Blair's) lies. Arabs regard freedom as a Jewish plot to weaken them.

---

Sure...the ones programmed by Al Jazeera were...but not the majority of Iraqi citizens who lived under the evils of Saddam.

One other thing we might all keep in mind is that China was enemy #1 before 9/11 conveniently came along. Remember the P3-Orion forced down on China's coast? Remember all the talk about China being the Next Big Threat? Or have we forgotten this? This admistratation came into office looking for a foreign boogeyman to get people's minds off the fact that their hopes and dreams were disapearing in front of their eyes; as the economy and the market melted down. The Bush adminstration has made no bones about it carrying the water for the defense firms and oil oliarchy. Notice after we've knocked off the worlds biggest gas station that your price at the pump is going down? So much for any benefit from our 1/2 TRILLION in THIS YEARS deficit spending from our let-the-rich off the hook and spend like there's no tommorow government. As noted, we don't even get FTTH, or hey, how about some investment in the power infrastructure here instead of Iraq! No, all we're going to get is a eventual currency meltdown and much, much higher taxes on us working folks for many moons to come to pay for all this incredibly irresponsible spending. Remember, empires have historically gone down not because of defeat on the battleground, but because of economic reasons. So it will be with us.

"No, all we're going to get is a eventual currency meltdown and much, much higher taxes on us working folks for many moons to come to pay for all this incredibly irresponsible spending. Remember, empires have historically gone down not because of defeat on the battleground, but because of economic reasons. So it will be with us."

Yes. It's an odd sort of victory when the victorious nation is the one that gets plundered. Any more great victories and we'll be bankrupt.

said by oliphant5:

---

Hell you must be overly glad to see what Clinton's "deal" with North Korea got us. Sure, he gave them billions but they won't develop nukes.

---

Actually we (the US, under both Clinton and Bush) never delivered on those promises. 7 years after the deal was made ground had not been broken, plans had not been made for the safe reactors we were supposed to build them. So since we didn't keep our side of the bargain we cant be too surprised they didn't keep their side either.

said by oliphant5:

---

Yeah you're right. We should have taken the Clintonista approach...do nothing, let terrorism flourish and watch Americans die by the thousands around the world in WTC bombings, embassy bombings, barracks bombings, and U.S.S. Cole style bombings.

---

Um. That's not exactly what was happening, but it does sound good from those on the Right who have an axe to grind. Let's not forget Bush did squat either UNTIL 9/11, despite the same kind of warnings and intel Clinton had. It's easy POST 9/11 to say "Damn, we didn't do anything" but you have to take things in context at the time. Would the President Clinton or Bush been able to convince anyone, (Other countries, or even we Americans), to go to war with Afganistan prior to 9/11? I seriously doubt it.

quote:

---

It would be just great to permit the spread of biological and radiological weapons...that would just thrill the liberals.

---

See, this is just ranting. You're allowing your lack of objectivity to show again. Liberals want everyone to have WMD's. Um... sure.

quote:

---

Liberals were all for going into Somalia, Bosnia (without UN approval I might add)...

---

These are blanket assumptions you project as the "Liberals" positions... in fact there were plenty of people, both Liberal and Conservative, that weren't fans of Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc. However that didn't stop Bush Snr or Clinton... and it won't stop Bush Jnr now.

quote:

---

but no way, no freeing of millions of Arabs oppressed by a madman like Saddam. Women and girls being able to attend schools for the first time in years in Afganistan doesn't matter to you bleeding hearts.

It's just amazing to watch liberal hypocrisy in action.

---

Uh, who's showing hypocrisy here? I haven't seen anyone of either camp proclaiming their love and support for Sadamm or the Taliban. I did see dissention on methods for dealing with Iraq, and on the need for a WAR, especially given the weak rationale and evidence being offered showing Iraq was an immediate threat. I don't remember hardly anyone (even nutjobs!) who were opposed to taking down the Taliban, other then hardcore islamics.

quote:

---

And no, I don't agree with GW...I don't wear blinders like you Bush haters do.

---

quote:

---

I take one issue at a time, look at all the facts and form an opinion about the situation. You on the other hand take everything from the Bush sucks perspective...

---

This is too funny. "I am fair and balanced, while you are completely biased. I base everything off of facts, you base it off emotions". SUURE. You're doing the opposite, allowing a belief system of strong support for Republicans (or maybe just your anger at Democrats in California?) to cloud your opinion of his actions, you post these posts defending and supporting him, while bashing detractors and claiming they are biased.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I look at Bush's performance, on domestic policy, on international policy, on what he says, does, pushes for, demands, gets, etc and I don't like a lot of them... just for examples, Patriot Act and expansions, economic policy, who gets his tax cuts, running the deficeit far into the red, International diplomacy (or lack thereof!), Energy policy, Trade, immigration, War on Terror, Dept. of Homeland security sweeping expanses in Federal power, Tarrifs, Farm Bill, bankruptcy "reform", this new issue to "Reform Overtime Pay" etc etc so, pardon me if I am not in support of the man for pushing things I don't agree with! That's my opinion, I base it on his performance, and you shouldn't just assume "He's a Bush hater!".

Before you go attacking other people's opinions as invalid or biased or whatever, remember it reflects back on you too.

Ok, now, that was a nice political sidetrack, maybe we can go back to the fiber issue now

[text was edited by author 2003-09-12 22:48:38]

said by KrK:

---

$2k each, means 240,000,000,000. Two Hundred Forty Billion to wire every household in America.

And I'd be willing to bet that if such a large infrastructure project was under way the prices of the equipment would drop due to mass production, so, it would probably cost less.

---

I read somewhere a while back that it would cost roughly $80-$90 billion to set up FTTH. Maybe the current figures are little 'fudged' to support ..er... non-support. Then again the old figures could be wrong too.

said by SRFireside:

---

I read somewhere a while back that it would cost roughly $80-$90 billion to set up FTTH.

---

Actually, I remembered reading on BBR that it would cost around $40-$50 billion. But, I also may be wrong.

I'd pay the $2000 to have my own home wired.

said by Speedy8:

---

I'd pay the $2000 to have my own home wired.

---

It's not that wild of concept. People pay that much for HDTV, for a Spa, commercial stove/oven. If Inet is a huge hobby or you run a home business paying 2-G's for FTTH is a valued home improvement.

If they ever think that people will spend $2000 for their own FTTH they had better also expect those same people will not be willing to pay any monthly fee higher than what AOL charges or less. That is a tall order in costs after all. Then again if they do it right with none of that hidden cost garbage that might just be a way to get some homes connected.

"It's not that wild of concept. People pay that much for HDTV, for a Spa, commercial stove/oven. If Inet is a huge hobby or you run a home business paying 2-G's for FTTH is a valued home improvement."

It's a wild concept because $2K is not the cost of wiring a single home; it's the per-home cost of wiring ALL homes. Big difference.

Since that's the case you're right...$2K at the volume price is TOO much.

$2K is not the cost of wiring a single home; it's the per-home cost of wiring ALL homes. Big difference.

This might be a dumb question but what do you mean by the sentence above?

I thought the problem whitacre had is with the prohibitive cost per customer $2000 * . I think he's just trying to save his own A$$. Income statement has to look good in order to get that raise... Now their considering laying off people trimming capital investment not to cool. I wonder what is contributing to their lower bottom line.

Oh, but our government will spend 87 Freakin' Billion dollars on our involvement in the war in Iraq.

How many homes, cities, counties, states, and towns could we put fiber to for 87 billion dollars? Oh right, all of them.

It's time to see where our priorities are. This never ending blank check to be the world's policeman is not only making us more and more unpopular, it is draining our national resources. Defend the country first, not the rest of the planet all at once.

>>> As this anonymous vendor (waiting on fiber deployment contracts) points out, each bell has their own opinions on the technology. "BellSouth's view is they want a competitor to Marconi in the fiber-to-the-curb business......"

Can anyone translate this into English? I'm particularly referring tho the phrase, "to Marconi in".

Tim

Is the $2000 price to existing homes? What about new housing developments? How much would it cost to put fiber down instead of laying copper? It can't be that much more.

This is just not right.. You have Cable networks that provide 10Mbps down and other provide 1.5Mbps down and some less then that.. Not only are the prices wacky but what do they plan to do about this? nothing as I see so far but to raise the prices.. By that time the price you pay for your cable Isp can get you FTTH.

Mike

said by Subaru:

---

This is just not right..

---

Not right? Even a moderate like me can see that SBC has no obligation to provide FTTH. It's "not right" that our free enterprise system hasn't stepped-in yet to solve this market snafu. That's up to you and me kid.

Actually our free market system has stepped in by virtue of the golden rule. SBC has the gold so they're making the rules. As was said earlier, they're sitting mighty pretty so they have no need or incentive to upgrade especially for working people who can't afford to pay a wheelbarrow full of money for it each month. They'll make just as much off of the paired copper as they would fiber only without the investment.

Of course they don't see the incentive for fiber. They make billions each quarter with what they have now, why would they want to spend $2000 per house? (which I think is high, but I don't know how they are figuring it)

They won't be able to rake in much more money with it, because regular people (not counting power users here) won't pay more than $50 or so for broadband, so it would be a net loss. There have been talks about telco TV, but Ed apparently doesn't care about that 'cause it is not going to happen over existing copper. Not much else you can do with fiber since they already have the dial tone covered.

They are going to squeeze every last drop out of the cash cow before they have to do FTTx. Does this really surprise anyone?

peace

"SBC Chief Edward Whitacre Jr says he sees just "doesn't see the incentive for FTTP" ... and notes he probably wouldn't be any more likely to consider FTTH even if prices dropped several hundred dollars."

Oh Puhleeze. -- Laughing my butt off here at 4meg down, 1 meg up ... with latencies out to the bone typically zeroes! ( a 20meg level is in trials, and upto oc-48 available for corporations right now. )

Ed's 'incentive' will be that forward-looking companies are going to absolutely eat his lunch while he's asleep at the wheel.

afnoid: "regular people (not counting power users here) won't pay more than $50 or so for broadband"

How about ~$30 for 1.5meg basic service level FTTU? (bundling clearer and cheaper telephone and cable tv while they're at it?)

Ed's hatin' on something he doesn't want to have to match. Which is fine ... like they said in school ... somewhere there was the world's greatest buggy whip manufacturer, but people buying cars instead of horse-drawn carriages didn't really care.

*

Why don't these communication companies go to the government? Why the hell are we paying the taxes on our phone line and DSL service for??? And Verizon has no excuse they took money from the State of Pennsylvania to fiber most of PA.

Adelphia cable uses fiber for my tv and internet.

Why wait to telco if cable companies run on fiber.

Most cities are fiber wired by their cable company.

Duh -- Fiber to the home.

I don't know where they get the $2000 per home figure.. but if the bells want to stay in business they better start investing in fiber.

Look to the long term, not the short term. If they don't start now.. they're simply going to lose everything to cable eventually. Not now, maybe not in 5yrs - but that digital coax line is gonna take the bells current business model and shred it.

Let me guess, these analysts are the same ones that told us to invest in the inflated internet-companies of years past (bef. April 2000)...

FTTH, FTTB, FTTC will happen much sooner; as the current trend/buzz points out, the munis can accelerate the process directly by lighting up their network and provide bundled cableTV/BB connections (as primitive as the services may be, such innovations are gaining momentum).
Quite a few projects are being currently developed or even implemented in certain cities around the globe, even in the US

Working examples:

KENNISWIJK PROJECT, Eindhoven, NL »www.kenniswijk.nl
Blackburn Electronic Village, Virginia »www.bev.net
Palo Alto,California »www.cpau.com/fth

One idea came to mind when going over the various web sites, pdf's, business plans I've read...
A transient form can be in bringing FTTC, then relaying the signal via 802.11x over the neighborhood; Maybe that can accelerate true broadband acceptance, keep cost low, and provide a platform for start ups to design and provide true broadband applications...


My 2 cents...

Well they're generally talking about widespread deployment when they throw out 10-30 year figures.

Given the bells track record at timely deployment of ANY new technology, those numbers really aren't ludicrous if we're talking about an 80% availability rate for FTTH.

Typical of Whitacre...He's so mis-informed. He still thinks the bells will be the only game in town for FTTP forever....with that kind of an pompus archaic old business school mentality. The US will find themselves even futher behind the rest of the world in infrastructure.
Freakin obstructionist.....
Go Muni's!!!!

From "FFTH in ten years" to "SBC Chief Edward Whitacre Jr says he sees just doesn't see the incentive for FTTP" in an impressive three months. I think Mr. Whitacre definitely could have a promising career as a politician.

Remember this?

»www.miami.com/mld/miamih ··· 9893.htm

- Dan

I wonder how many jobs could be saved if ths corporate raider was canned!!!

I know I read several articles a few weeks back, stating how aggressive verizon has gotten with their new CEO poised for more and more advances in technology, upgrades to their network, and gaining momentum in such things as Fiber to the Curb.. I know SBC has been discussed already but I am wondering about verzion are these guys still in it to win or what?

If it were a $2000 one-time fee...and not $2000/mo. but I guess im few and far between...

Why isn't there more outrage about this.
How quickly people forget.
The ink is barely dry on the triennial review and this guy is already out shooting his mouth off, spitting in everyone's face and thumbing his nose at people. He doesn't even try to cover over his bs, he flaunts it.

One wonders if Powell has enough of a pair to be genuinely pissed that this guy makes such an obvious joke out of his dereg agenda.
Or perhaps our political eunuchs and most of the consuming public have been emasculated for too long to even care anymore.

...why the telcos were soooooo upset with the FCC for keeping UNE-P in place on copper. Boo frickin' hoo...:)

into their Pronto/RT strategy at this point. To announce a switch to FTTP now would mean Pronto was a wasted effort. The reality is that Pronto ("FTTN") is good enough for what people want, now, and probably for quite some time. After all, people are having a hard time figuring out what to do with 6 megabits.

FTTP would enable them to offer modernized TV services and be more future-proof, but is that really worth it, given that we don't even know what we need it for yet? The TV market is prettty saturated already between cable and satellite. It just seems to make more business sense to continue focusing on making their existing services more available, before going on to the next step.

I'm all for progress, don't get me wrong, but I can't say I blame SBC for not wanting to do FTTH when we don't even have an application for it yet and we're not even using the full potential out of DSL services.

... who here remembers the thread a few weeks back where the Telco's were exposing their plans to standardize and speedup deployment of fiber, and some of the posters took the "Yeah, believe it when I see it, this is just hot air while the FCC is making their decision"?

Remember how some of the ILEC defenders around here attacked said posters for being negative?

Well, tada, guess who was right... All that talk was just BS to try and smokescreen the FCC. Now the true colors come forth. So, maybe when everyone in China has FTTP Mr. Whiteacre might suddenly wake up from his nap?

Nahh. Bring on the Muni's. Screw SBC.

Who was right ? Who the hell are you? Nostradamus?
SBC is the crappiest bell company out there.. I wouldnt expect anything more than this crap from them. Verizon will likely be the one to initiate widespread FTTH.. its a certainty...and the rest of the baby bells will follow. You guys dont really think that Bell South and SBC made deals with directTV for no reason?? Do ya??

quote:

---

we don't even know what we need it for yet? The TV market is prettty saturated already between cable and satellite. It just seems to make more business sense to continue focusing on making their existing services more available, before going on to the next step.

---

Heres an idea.. crystal clear videophones. This will be great for those who hate visiting their in-laws too often. Start investing in your local stripclubs.

Its commmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmming... slowly but surely. »www.lightreading.com/doc ··· treading