> > However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT > Broadband current > > gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to > compete against > > them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't block > anything, let > > them run servers, provide static IP's, and provide tiered service > > levels. All of these things are an improvement over ATT > Broadband's > > shitty network, and if ATT came in and offered wireless, > it's probably > > safe to say it's going to suck just as much as their cable modem > > service does. > > Uhm, the cable companies have announced plans to cap bandwidth. > > Unless you pay the fees, running servers is a no-no, period, > on the networks you talk about above. I was making the point that a *non*-ATT/AOL/TW network would likely be able to offer more since all of the cable modem companies are clamping down on bandwidth and servers. Right there is a reason for people to choose the local wireless provider over the 800lb gorillas. Jay