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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mahatmabenfoo who wrote (171542)	10/10/2002 11:28:30 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"so who knows how they would have deployed it, and at what cost." The post which you propose to establish that idsn was made "available" by what would be the rbocs in 1984 has some issues. First your one poster, who seems to have been working for SGI does indicate that inorder to get 54$ a month he has to spend $600 in installation costs, .... well financially speaking that is sort of the same thing as 200 a month. BUT, your poster is missing the drift here. You are not going to achieve a ubiquitous internet with high dollar rates like that. Once a USR modem was installed NO ADDITONAL CHARGE was incurred, the phone co. could not tell you had circumvented their antique switch tech. And of course, you are I am sure aware, as anyone who understands the technology would be that you could yourself create idsn for free using two modems and windows 98, again, for free?? Next, and perhaps some what more importantly, a humonguos "T-1" line was $10,000 a month; that is roughly the speed of high speed dsl today, which is about $80/month. I don't need to use deja news, I was there. The point is that the "phone co" HAD NO MOTIVATION TO GIVE IT TO YOU ANY CHEAPER they owned the pipe. The TDA was supposed to change all that. It did not. It was a political boondogle. My belief is that it was bought and paid for by political contributions. That it was only intended to take the public heat off the phone companies for about 5 years....which it did. And, puleeeeeeeeeze, let's stay with facts that are on topic. Pets.com had very little to do with the infrastructure, so you should not use them as an example, although, they would have been a lot better off if the rbocs had not fought tooth and nail to preserve their monopoly. And dark fiber, sort of HAS NOTHING TO FRIGGIN' DO WITH WHAT the topic I discussed, but as long as I am here, it is my belief that att and the rbocs got the rate payers of this country to lay ~60Billion dollars of dark fiber at public expense. But don't worry, armstong and comcast will put it to good use. Have you looked at cable tv lately, its all pay and it is ALL att. The fact that the rbocs had the tech is irrelevant, don't you agree??????