From owner-freebsd-hardware Sat Jul 6 22:37:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA28062 for hardware-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gallup.cia-g.com (root@gallup.cia-g.com [206.206.162.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA28055 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gallup.cia-g.com (gallup.cia-g.com [206.206.162.10]) by gallup.cia-g.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA22963; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 23:37:32 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 23:37:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Joel Yancey To: Henry Spencer cc: "Jacob M. Parnas" , hardware@freebsd.org, bsdi-users@bsdi.com Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Henry Spencer wrote: > > well, First Off,if cable modems were around, ISP's wouldnt be, because > > the Cable company has taken over the business... > > Most of the small ISPs are not long for this world anyway, because they're > about to get competition from the local phone companies. The people who > own the existing wires have a powerful natural advantage, and there's just > no getting around that. Well, doesnt that take some fun out of running unix, if you cant be a sysadmin on the professional level with out being hired out? i would think most of the people around this mailing list would be against such a thing. > > > plus, they CLAIM everyone > > will have 10mbps per house hold, well, considering that theres not thaty > > much bandwidth to waste for a bunch of web browsing crowd, and they say > > that there will only be 128k recieve, but 10mbps send. now thats strange. > > Not really. For one thing, the 128k/10M split is just an oddity of *your* > local cable system -- the better-equipped ones are talking about symmetrical > bandwidth. For another, the cable company has *lots* of bandwidth available > in their wiring; it's just a matter of the electronics on each end. Of > course, in the end, it will boil down to you paying higher fees if you want > higher bandwidth. Well, do you have proof otherwise? i heard this from a national bases, in fact, from what *I* hear, they really dont exsist in the working form as of yet. > > > *I* myself, dont like that opinion, because the cable company doesnt > > really know what a computer system is all about, and i dont like the fact > > that then they would have a monopoly. > > What do you think of phone companies? It may come down to a choice of two > evils. As I said above: they own the wires, so there's not a lot of > room to maneuver. If you don't like monopolies, start lobbying now for > competitive cable and phone services. no, i dont like the phone companies, but i sure can provide a service using them, but with a cable company how am i supposed to get someone to call me, when there already connected? and as far as beating a monopoly, unfortunatly, i dont think ANYONE has enough money to lay there own cable all of a city, or a state. now if YOU have any suggestions on making this amount of money so i can do this, im listening. > Henry Spencer > henry@zoo.toronto.edu Thank you, have a nice day Joel Yancey Dead.deadend.com