Talk-Polywell.org

companies, business, people relying on the older technology are just frick. That's just how it is.

Something that's actually happening right now, the innovative method of turning a wireless call into a land line call seems to do exactly that. I'm talking about the magicJack. I was talking to my brother about this, so within the home, it's okay no matter what. But what if I took my laptop to my university campus, where i spend most of my time, connect to the university wireless internet and use the magicJack. What happens now?

What if I, because cellphones are just small computers, have a small wireless internet card, attach that to the magicJack, and attach the magicJack to my cellphone, so whereever I have access to wireless internet, I can make phone calls without using my minutes.

My point is this, there's resistance from the cellphone companies at the moment, but I dont think they have much choice other than to bend over.

What about breakthroughs in other fields, like semiconductor materials, fusion energy technology(keep your fingers cross for this one), information processing and storage, etc?

What you guys think?

What if I, because cellphones are just small computers, have a small wireless internet card, attach that to the magicJack, and attach the magicJack to my cellphone, so whereever I have access to wireless internet, I can make phone calls without using my minutes.

I haven't seen this magicJack, but that's been a real prospect since VoIP was developed. I think bluetooth wireless phones have even been developed for it, though if not, they could be with off the shelf technology.

This is essentially why industry doesn't want cities building free wireless networks. It would end paying for internet at home, paying for a data plan on your smart phone, and paying for any plan on your phone at all.

I don't understand what you are saying. I have a 'mobile phone' that is a full windows mobile computer and I can make a mobile voice call, by 3G to the internet, by wifi to the internet, by 3G to Voip (and out to land line) and by wifi to Voip (and to land line).

It can share its 3G internet connection with computers connected to it by USB, by wifi or by bluetooth.

Equally, I have a laptop that... &c..

What are you saying is a new thing?...

MirariNefas wrote:

What if I, because cellphones are just small computers, have a small wireless internet card, attach that to the magicJack, and attach the magicJack to my cellphone, so whereever I have access to wireless internet, I can make phone calls without using my minutes.

I haven't seen this magicJack, but that's been a real prospect since VoIP was developed. I think bluetooth wireless phones have even been developed for it, though if not, they could be with off the shelf technology.

This is essentially why industry doesn't want cities building free wireless networks. It would end paying for internet at home, paying for a data plan on your smart phone, and paying for any plan on your phone at all.

Cities canceled those plans because they couldn't afford the build out.

I know. Why is it so difficult for them? Is there some reason why it would be more expensive than the cellular network we use?

Do you have any figures on costs for any given city? I'd like to compare how much it would cost in taxes versus how much people pay already.

This is out of date, but here:

http://news.cnet.com/The-citywide-Wi-Fi ... 22150.html

Philadelphia has about 590,000 households, according to the 2000 Census. Using that number, the city figures it will cost roughly $10 to $15 million to reach every household, according to its business plan.

So, let's say they tax the equivalent of $20/month to those 590,000 households. Frankly, for mobile data plan, internet access, and unlimited calling/texts, that's a steal and people would come out ahead financially. That would raise $142 million/year. Assuming they'd want to break even on the investment by five years or so, the projected $15 million price tag would need to have been underestimated by a factor of 50 for this plan to not make sense. Or maybe 50% of households are impoverished and can't pay?

There must be something I don't get. Would this actually be really shitty internet access? Would it not penetrate through walls enough to be worth using? To make it a worthwhile network, would it actually cost a billion dollars plus?

MirariNefas wrote:This is out of date, but here:

http://news.cnet.com/The-citywide-Wi-Fi ... 22150.html

Philadelphia has about 590,000 households, according to the 2000 Census. Using that number, the city figures it will cost roughly $10 to $15 million to reach every household, according to its business plan.

So, let's say they tax the equivalent of $20/month to those 590,000 households. Frankly, for mobile data plan, internet access, and unlimited calling/texts, that's a steal and people would come out ahead financially. That would raise $142 million/year. Assuming they'd want to break even on the investment by five years or so, the projected $15 million price tag would need to have been underestimated by a factor of 50 for this plan to not make sense. Or maybe 50% of households are impoverished and can't pay?

There must be something I don't get. Would this actually be really shitty internet access? Would it not penetrate through walls enough to be worth using? To make it a worthwhile network, would it actually cost a billion dollars plus?

Bandwidth charges.

You mean, cost to run?

Apparantly the cost of the wireless network in diminutive Elk City, which has 4159 households, was $30,000 per year to run. That's just shy of $12 per month, per househould.

If that applies just as well in Philly, they'd still make $57 million a year to pay off construction with, or $283 million in five years. That brings the factor of 50 down to 19, still a subtantial margin above their estimated cost, and still taxing only the ridiculously cheap amount of $20 a month.

Perhaps 50% of househoulds are too poor to pay taxes? Okay, so it's $40 a month for the rest of them then. Sucks to subsidize the deadbeats, but $40 a month is still cheaper than the data plan for a single person's smart phone, and much cheaper than total household data costs.

What I don't know is how good this network in Elk City was. If this was the equivelent of dial-up bandwidth, then I concede. $20 or $40 a month to give everyone 56k is horrible. But if it was the equivalent of DSL, I don't see the problem.

None of these magic toys work up at my cabin. I have to climb about 300 ft in altitude to get any kind of cell signal. I don't know what the capability is because my $10 tracfone does not do much. I am not lugging the laptop up there.

The cabin has a landline but we decided to turn it off because we are not there much and I don't do dial-up any more.

There is some talk of Frontier bringing fiber optics in, but so far it is just talk.

Basically, the winning technology for me is likely to be the first one that covers my little patch of heaven way up the holler.

The thing is, I can't retire until I have broadband there.

Manassas, VA was beta-testing broadband over power line, a technology they already had in place to manage their power grid and thought they might use to compete with other ISPs. They are abandoning it. It was not free.

MirariNefas wrote:You mean, cost to run?

Apparantly the cost of the wireless network in diminutive Elk City, which has 4159 households, was $30,000 per year to run. That's just shy of $12 per month, per househould.

If that applies just as well in Philly, they'd still make $57 million a year to pay off construction with, or $283 million in five years. That brings the factor of 50 down to 19, still a subtantial margin above their estimated cost, and still charging only the ridiculously cheap amount of $20 a month.

Perhaps 50% of househoulds are too poor to pay taxes? Okay, so it's $40 a month for the rest of them then. Sucks to subsidize the deadbeats, but $40 a month is still cheaper than the data plan for a single person's smart phone, and much cheaper than total household data costs.

What I don't know is how good this network in Elk City was. If this was the equivelent of dial-up bandwidth, then I concede. $20 or $40 a month to give everyone 56k is horrible. But if it was the equivalent of DSL, I don't see the problem.

My guess is that business might eat all the savings and then some.

Or maybe the fees the city gets from providers is more.

Hm. Yeah. I could see charges by installers/operaters with high profit margins rapidly pushing things up. It's a big endeavour, not something you can shop around much for.

Unfortunate. I think it will happen though, just, it might take a few more decades. China will do it first, and eventually we'll feel stupid enough to try catching up.

To Tom, I make no predictions or serious propositions whatsoever for rural areas. It seems like that's a difficult thing to make work economically.

I suppose I've read about proposals for massively tall broadcast stations from the upper atmosphere using tethered balloons. Maybe they could get something up with a wide enough coverage area to really make rural wireless work. Not sure how far you can get a handset to transmit back to it though, so a massive broadcast area may be a bit false.

Do you know why the power line idea failed? I'd heard about that one too, but never knew what happened to it.

MirariNefas wrote:To Tom, I make no predictions or serious propositions whatsoever for rural areas. It seems like that's a difficult thing to make work economically.

I suppose I've read about proposals for massively tall broadcast stations from the upper atmosphere using tethered balloons. Maybe they could get something up with a wide enough coverage area to really make rural wireless work. Not sure how far you can get a handset to transmit back to it though, so a massive broadcast area may be a bit false.

Do you know why the power line idea failed? I'd heard about that one too, but never knew what happened to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line ... erlines.29

Tom Ligon wrote:The thing is, I can't retire until I have broadband there.

Can you retire from SIGMA?

Following on from MirariNefas: Broadband by Balloon

Aerostats - Emergency Communication and Sensor Platforms