[KLUG Members] RE: broadband options

[Adam Williams]

>Sorry, OT but in response to the broadband options...
>I know there isn't much out there, and so I was thrilled to have
>someone want to financially back my idea to start a wireless ISP in the
>Elkhart County area.  I know there are already 2 802.11b providers out
>there (MicroVillage and MapleNet-I have known Gene for years), but there
>have been issues.  

>From the people I've talked to and what I've read I think 802.11 is a
great way for an ISP to offer bandwidth.

>First off, a customer's up front costs are between $600 to $2000.

That seems kinda steep.  I think for residential customers the startup
fee needs to be sub-$300.  Or let them spread it out over the first
years monthly payments.

>Monthly fees are as low as $50 for MicroVillage (aka SkyBurst), but
>there is no CIR and customer service and performance are lacking.

Is there an ISP that provides its customers a CIR?  Lots of people talk
about CIR but IMHO it is like saying you use Microsoft software so you
can have someone to sue if it blows up.  Yeah right.  CIRs are hard to
prove for Internet access.

How many people on this list are monitoring their residential internet
router for congestion and average throughput?  I'd guess it is a pretty
low number.

>Monthly fees at MapleNet are $200 (for 56k connection) to $600 for a
>shared 1.5 Mbps.

That isn't very linear.  Whether or not this is acceptable depends on
the license agreement.  I'd pay more for broadband than I do know if the
ISP wouldn't jerk me around with port filters ("for my protection") and
changing IP addresses.  I'm paying for bandwidth,  give me bandwidth and
nothing but bandwidth.  

Call to all ISPs: Shut up and stay out of the customers hair.

If the license doesn't prevent multiple residences sharing a connection
I think the high price is acceptable.  I'd be able to defray some of the
cost by letting neighbors jack into my ethernet.  And it wouldn't really
be a loss to the ISP because those people would never be "stand alone"
broadband customers anyway.  Unfortunately most business people just
can't see that. 
  
>I suggest that the ISP should eat some of the setup costs and
>better service should be offered.  That would make wireless a real
>contender in broadband options.  These ideas have already been approved,
>but I am not ready to commit unless I feel that there is really a market
>need out there.  

Make a better EULA.  The intelligent customer (at least the geeks) will
be willing to trade cost-per-K for less corporate crap.

And what about apartment dwellers?  It seems like you could really bring
it in if you pitched it to complex operators as something they could
sell as a complex perk.

>	Please don't think I am trying to use KLUG for free
>commercials-I haven't even accepted the offer.  And besides, Kalamazoo
>would not be in the coverage area.  I would really like to know what do
>you guys think of this.  You can email me off list so that I do not
>clutter up this list with OT topics.

Want to come to GR?