Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geoffrey Wren who wrote (10839)	4/2/2001 6:56:56 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

"IF there were reliable (>99%) broadband, that overall was noticeably better than 56k modems, I think a lot of people would sign up for it." geoffrey- I agree completely. It's a shame the MSOs and telcos are botching broadband big time. Cutting their nose to spite their face. Much like the PC/Windows (max 50% penetration rate wall) have botched their space too. -MikeM(From Florida)

To: geoffrey Wren who wrote (10839)	4/3/2001 12:53:22 PM
From: RAT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Adding on to the commentary: I have been on MediaOne / T cable modem via roadrunner (in a suburb of boston) for about 6 months and have good luck - usually running between 300k and 1 meg. The biggest crush is around 3 PM when kids get home from school - I assume they are downloading music and IM'ing each other. At those times, the cable modem is as good as dial up - at best. I am purchasing a 4 port router this weekend, so I will see what the foray into home networking will do to performance and my wife's tolerance level. The funny thing about my situation is there is a disincentive to let my neighbors know that I like the product. My access is good right now, presumably because there is lower penetration in my area. If I were to tell my neighbors how much I like it and they sign up, my service would actually get worse, and their experience would be worse too. It is so much the opposite of every other product or service that I have ever experienced. When I tell someone that I like a restaurant or a consumer product, it is more likely that the other businesses will stay open or that products will continue to get funding to evolve. Cable is the opposite - the more people that get it, the worse the product gets, the worse the customer service gets. If a cable company ever hired someone from a consumer products company to look at their service, they would be appalled.

To: geoffrey Wren who wrote (10839)	4/3/2001 7:28:21 PM
From: geoffrey Wren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Let's tax the internet and escrow the taxes for tax credits for servers, laying pipeline, etc. One reason for the so often slow use of the net is the damned downloading of multiple jpg's, usually of little interest, and multiple advertisements from various sponsors. And some advertisements change every 5 seconds or so, so you don't just download ~ 9, but rather ~ 12. Just one illustration if you follow golf and want to know about the upcoming Masters, is the CNN page that takes well over a minute to download, at least for me, now. sportsillustrated.cnn.com As it is, extra capacity in the system goes mostly for advertising, which mostly does not pay for itself, and has high external costs to the system. One partial solution may be industry as a whole to reduce advertisements, and for providers to charge and provide cleaner page viewing. But no one wants to unilaterally do this. It is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" problem. With common grazing lands, no one has an incentive to reduce his herd, and so the grounds are overgrazed providing everyone less benefit. Perhaps we could tax advertisements, and then put that money into the infrastructure (tax credits for servers, etc.). We could tax downloads (sent and receiving). Maybe 1/100th--5/100ths of a cent per each, variable per size and use of off-site imbedded materials. We could tax e-mails, at $.01/per for each one sent (again more money, and discourage SPAMMERS). For the casual user, make it an average cost of maybe $3/month. Of course this would initially be met with great objections, as advertising provides what dwindling revenue there is to internet companies, and no one wants to pay to use the internet. However, if the money went back into the system (credits for servers, etc.) it would provide some rationality to use, and discourage those inefficient and unwanted users and emails. Llike imposing limits on fishing catches, this would be unpopular among the industry, and yet it would benefit the industry. Doubt, though, there is any chance of this happening. People think we can just grow our way out of the mess, but I doubt it. They'll be sending SPAM with imbedded graphics and video. More pop-ups, etc. Just something to think about while my stocks are tanking.