Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Another gripe (Score 1) 190

Unlike most people, I really don't mind ads. It's how companies pay for free services. What I've had issue with for years is the loudness factor of these ads. Some of these ads are at max volume. When factored in that they were auto-play, simply visiting a website would be annoying and potentially hearing damaging.

Comment Re:Phone companies lock people into contracts (Score 1) 193

Your assertion that "Phone companies lock people into contracts" is not true for everyone. Some phone companies lock some people into contracts is true. But, again, it is not true of everyone. While consumers may not have all the choices they deserve, they do have some choice.

Look at it this way: If Comcast wants to expand its Xfinity subscriber base in a particular area, and a lot of Internet users in that area are already locked into contracts with the phone company and the satellite TV company, it'll have a hard time selling Xfinity subscriptions unless it can afford to buy out the ETFs of the competitor's subscribers. Now replace "Comcast" brands with ViaSat, its competitor with Gogo, and "Internet users" with airlines.

If any competitor wants to expand into an area where another competitor already has contracts, yes business will be difficult initially, but what again is your point? This is how businesses has been done forever. In your example, Xfinity can entice potential customers to switch when their contracts run out. They can blanket neighborhoods with flyers about cheaper rates. Or Xfinity can offer to pay for any early termination fees to win customers.

In the case of airlines, Gogo was the only option at one point. Some airlines signed contracts with them. But the airlines didn't sign permanent, irrevocable contracts. They may have signed long term contracts. But my point again is not ALL of them did. Some of them are now installing wifi and have options.

If a better competitor comes along, the airlines may not renew their contracts with Gogo. Our they could buy out of their contracts if the contract has such a clause. I would think the airlines' lawyers would have been diligent enough to put in buyout and termination clauses before entering into a long term contract.

The main obstacle here is that the infrastructure will cost billions to anyone entering into this market. That is what is keeping everyone out and why there are only a few options.

Comment Re:Client != potential client (Score 1) 193

This is what you wrote:

Unless Gogo has all your potential clients tied up for a decade with exclusive contracts

This was what was in the article:

At least two companiesâ"ViaSat and Global Eagle Entertainment (GEE)â"are encroaching on its airspace, winning business by offering faster, cheaper connections that use satellites instead of cell towers.

Now you are writing:

An airline that has already deployed a particular provider's service is a "client", not a "potential client". This means a "potential client" for ViaSat is an airline that 1. isn't already a ViaSat client and 2. isn't already in an exclusive contract with Gogo.

If Gogo's competitors already have contracts with some airlines, your "all" point is nonsense. That's like saying Comcast could potentially look all my neighbors into contracts. Except that it is a fact that they haven't and can't.

Comment Re:Am I the only person... (Score 1) 193

And ATG at 3GHz is the only option? In the article, it mentions competitors that are using satellites. And the last time I checked 3GHz wasn't the only frequency. And again, you are free to pursue your own solution although not having a few billion in capital may be a hindrance especially when there isn't exactly a lucrative market.

Comment Re:No Competition Only GoGo And $$$ To CEOs (Score 1) 193

Please. Gogo has not had many competitors historically but that is changing. You however want to contribute that all to bribes and kickbacks rather than the simple truth that is is freakishly expensive to create the infrastructure to supply wifi to passenger jet where maybe 10% of the passengers are willing to pay for the service. They are now getting competition because it takes time and money to build a competing infrastructure.

Comment Re:Am I the only person... (Score 1) 193

But in your example of computers imagine if Intel only sold a hundred thousand processors a year instead of millions. And that AMD never really existed. While there might be progress but technology does not advance without financial motivations. If you want to spend billions and start your own company to offer faster airplane wifi, go right ahead.

Comment Re:Slow is why it's expensive. (Score 1) 193

How about cost? Hey if you think that you can provide a better, cheaper service, you're free to do so. However as the story pointed out, Gogo's current technology relies on a network of 225 towers which may be located in remote places. Building and maintaining this network can't be cheap. Their new competitors will rely on a network of satellites. That also isn't cheap to do.

Comment Re:Woah (Score 1) 67

Generally, the District Attorney is the city's head official when it comes to legal matters. Most of the time they focus on criminal matters as a city would have more of those to deal with than civil matters. For large cities, they may have separate DAs to civil and criminal and divisions to handle both sides.

Comment Re:Woah (Score 1) 67

In this case an outside firm was handling the case. This isn't unusual as the city would not necessarily have lawyers with copyright expertise. Also it could be that their attorneys wanted no part of the case as well. But the expert copyright lawyer the city hired SHOULD have known better, but it may have been what the client wanted.

"Is it really you, Fuzz, or is it Memorex, or is it radiation sickness?" -- Sonic Disruptors comics