Joltage Powers Down 104
jbyter writes "Wi-Fi service provider Joltage sent a e-mail to subscribers that read "It is with regret that I am writing to inform you that Joltage will be discontinuing its Wi-Fi subscriber and provider services effective at the end of this month." This could have been very cool, but due to economy and lack of subscriber participation they are no longer able to finance their operations."
Too bad -- this sounded like a good idea. The Joltage homepage isn't much help -- it's in place, but content-free. Any other Joltage customers who can comment on this?
not meant to be (Score:5, Insightful)
And the people selling their excess bandwidth would probably be breaking their agreement with their internet service provider.
It was just not meant to be.
Re:not meant to be (Score:1, Funny)
Notice they refuse to put the name of the account in the description. I'm guessing "jewboy" or "ihateblackpeople".
Re:not meant to be (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the google cache [216.239.51.100] still has the old home page, and from their all the navigation still appears to function, including the registration page etc.
It makes me chuckle when a site only kills the homepage. How hard is it to move the whole site to a new directory, assuming you want to discourage visitors from seeing old content?
Re:not meant to be (Score:1)
AT&T intel and such are doing Cometa Networks, planning for 20,000 hotspots by the end of 2002.
Cometa Networks [cometanetworks.com]
Argh. Saturate this.
The joltage system was a little fucked, they didn't have routers which could log access, you had to have two routers, aka DSL or Cable Modem, then router (i like blocking access on 1434 and such), then puter, then access point... this requires puter on all the time. Most dont leave their puter on this much. Boingo doesn't require a puter on but costs like 700 bucks!!!
boingo [boingo.com]
Service Agreements? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I buy bandwidth, I expect to be able to do anything I please with that bandwidth. As it is, common TOS are holding back internet development. I see a day coming when every appliance has an IP (_not_ NATed), and every person is a content provider. That's what the 'net promises and they better deliver.
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:5, Insightful)
In an ideal world, we would all get as much bandwidth as the physical lines could carry, but we'd only pay for what we'd use. That way, even casual internet users could download things faster, but not pay as much as hardcore pirates and business users, who use more bandwidth.
It would provide a better experience for everyone, and better reflect costs.
To expand on this idea, perhaps have evening and weekend bandwidth cheaper, so we can all fight the RIAA the only way we can
(notes: I'm aware that a cable modem has less upload speed than a T1 line, i'm just illustrating a point. Also I'm aware that most
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
Cable modem has pretty much no guaranteed throughput to any hop. DSL is a bit further, and while not contractually guaranteeing throughput, it does extend dedicated throughput further than cable, to the CO.
Now realistically, you can only guarantee a connection so far, and how far is it guaranteed in a T1? Is it that much more further? Obviously, the other end you want throughput to could have less throughput or be more congested, so they really can only guarantee to the next hop, maybe further than DSL, but effectively not more useful.
My experience is that the high price for a T1 is not so much for the bandwidth, but for the care and reliability. They will make 'best-effort' attempts to support DSL/cable users, but the reality is that big commercial clients come first. The bandwidth may be limited, but the equipment and cabling used is more reliable, in addition to the better support.
And his point is also correct. They really don't limit you on such lines as they tend to do in 'consumer' level connections with the TOS.
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
DSL providers so misrepresent this truth compared to cable modems.
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
-a
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
Ok. Arguing about the example without disputing the point is where someone has taken issue with a device used to clarify the point under discussion, but in a way which does not extend to the fundemental concerpt itself. It is pointless because any number of examples could have been chosen for illustrative purposes, and it would obviously be futile to disprove them all. The time and effort would be better spent directed at the issue itself.
ok?
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
I do love 802.11 for the ability to take my laptop around my house.. but honestly I have been rather underwhelmed by the performance. I've used both 802.11a and b, a couple of different brands of each. Realistically, I have found my distance limitation to be perhaps 25-60 feet, in both residential and commercial settings.
My bed is 29 feet from my access point, and has a line-of-sight to it. Still, I get only 40% signal. Throughput with 802.11b is maybe 2mb/s... with 802.11a, it's an eye-popping 40mb/s! but alas, if I move to my wife's side of the bed, the bandwidth dropps off significantly. How am I supposed to evaluate these results when I am duct taped to a BED???
sigh.. What we do in the name of progress!
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
How am I supposed to evaluate these results when I am duct taped to a BED???
News flash: 802.11 found to be poor choice for victims of home invasions
-a
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
<a href="http://www.planet-80211.com">Planet 802.11</a>
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
Let me try again
again [planet-80211.com]
I didn't double -- that.
The REAL reason for T1 prices (Score:1)
IANATE (I Am Not A Telco Employee), but I have used their commercial services, so I know what a business line really is.
Re:The REAL reason for T1 prices (Score:1)
Even with all of the forementioned services factored out of the cost of a T1, it is still more expensive by orders of magnitude. If you would like more evidence of the cost of bandwidth, find the price of UU.net's burstable lines compared to their tiered lines. Also find the cost of business DSL offering T1 speeds.
Sometimes a knife is a better tool . . . (Score:2)
And the day my coffee grinder has an IP address is the day I start grinding my coffee with a mortor and pestle.
I require my fridge to keep my food cold. That's it's job. To hold it's interior at a certain temperature. It's *my* job to select that temperature, as well as what goes in my fridge, and when.
The internet is a wonderful tool for dispersing information ( but not the only one, and only sometimes the best one).
It's a lousy tool for making toast, and the logic needed to do so is easily included in the toaster, where it belongs. And I sure as hell don't want to give my toaster the ability to ask me if I wouldn't really like to have some genuine Welch's Brand Grape Jelly with my toast.
Spam is bad enough as it is.
As for *everyone* being a content provider, if that includes the moron down the street, and his entire moron family. . . why? What's the point, either to me or *him*?
KFG
The discussion was IP addresses (Score:1)
In fact, they'll pay the toaster manufacturer to make sure they do. If I were such a toaster manufacturer I'd solicit such business if I could.
Of course your milage may vary, but I'm not at all sure what benifit I would derive from worrying about my milk going sour while I'm out of town. For that matter, when I'm out of town for long enough for milk to go sour I've emptied my fridge first, pulled its plug out of the wall and gone to a certain amount of trouble to arrange to be somewhere I don't recieve email.
I have nothing against the internet. I'm here, aren't I? I'm even producing content right now. But there's such a thing as appropriate technology.
KFG
Re:Sometimes a knife is a better tool . . . (Score:2)
Oh... actually that day is here... and it's useful.
That's ironic, because *my* GPS. . . (Score:1)
KFG
Re:Sometimes a knife is a better tool . . . (Score:1)
You only give one reason for networking a fridge.. temperature regulation. But I can think of several others, and I'm sure others can think of dozens more. Imagine a fridge that automatically catalogued it's contents. You're at the grocery store, and you can't remember whether you have enough sour cream or whatever.. boom, your Bluetooth enabled PDA sends a request to your fridge back home, and you find out you do need more. What if your fridge could even provide stats on your food consumption, maybe even an ability to order new food when you need it.
Yeah, you may not want it.. that's fine.
As for everyone being a content provider.. well, if it's uninteresting content, you just don't read it.. that's what google is for. But the way many ISPs are setup now, you can't serve content even if you wanted to, which is the fundamental issue here. You may not want to serve content, but you should have the right to.
Josh
you may not want it.. that's fine (Score:1)
Q.E.D.
KFG
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2, Insightful)
The ISPs go under the assumption that not all of their subscribers are not going to be maxed out 24x7. If that changes then your "unlimited" access will get a bit more pricey.
Grow Up (Score:2)
Re:Grow Up (Score:2)
"I understand that ISP's need to have such TOS to be able to provide service in the first place."
Was meant to signify that I have some concept of reality.
But the attitude that even desiring such a thing is stupid is equivalent to a '640k is enough for anybody' attitude. I'm the consumer, that's what I want, and that's what I will (eventually) get. Get it?
Re:Grow Up (Score:2)
Re:Grow Up (Score:2)
Well, that's not entirely true. You are not allowed to share it with anyone outside of your building. But you can use all your bandwidth, all the time, and they are A-OK with that.
I think the no-sharing clause is to prevent 1 person from ordering DSL, and a 3-house radius getting service from it. Not to limit the amount of bandwidth that they consume.
Re:Grow Up (Score:1)
"Moderations of Use:
Bandwidth: As an ISP, Speakeasy's bottom line is determined partially by the amount of bandwidth customers utilize. Speakeasy can normally balance that cost and utilization while continuing to provide great service to all customers. Customers will not be charged for the bandwidth consumed, nor do we have specific limits or caps on that bandwidth. If you utilize any of your Speakeasy services in a manner which consumes excessive bandwidth or affects Speakeasy's core equipment, overall network performance, or other users' services, Speakeasy may require that you cease or alter these activities." Link to TOS page [speakeasy.net]
I wouldn't personally interpret that to say they are delighted to for you use "all of your bandwidth all of the time", and I still maintain that folks misinterpret 24/7 connectivity to mean that 24/7 full throttle both ways is quite OK with ISP's.
Re:Grow Up (Score:1)
As a wISP I set limits in my SA. I am NOT selling you a dedicated internet connection. I sell 256kbit with 3GB/mo of data. 384 @ 4gb, ect.
Any ISP that does not put limits on there use should and will be taken advantage of. Many learned that the hardway(@Home for instance)
If you buy a 24/7 line thats one thing. If you buy a 27/7 @ some speed thats another. If you buy a dedicated connection that is yet antoher. ISP's have to start making it clear to people what it is that they are selling and what you are buying.
Crackers
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
I see a day coming when someone DDoSes your cable modem, your hot water heater, AND your Ron Jeremy(R) dildo.
If God had wanted us all to have IPs, He wouldn't have given them a 32-bit address space. Instead, we invent NATting, and call ourselves clever. Alas, it is all vanity. Bend your will to His, grasshopper, and great will be your enlightenment.
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:1)
What happens from my router onwards should be my problem - not the ISPs.
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
Re:IANAL (Score:1)
Service Agreements FUD (Score:1)
It's only the big companies used to having government sanctioned monopolies that think they can sign up everyone for $50 for home internet access plus $60 for mobile internet access, plus $40 for mobile phone access, plus $30 for home phone access, plus $60 for cable service, plus some other amount for using using any of these services, plus advertising, plus a media tax on your backup media.
Re:Service Agreements? (Score:2)
so your saying if your buy a gallon of water from your water company, and only use a pint, it should be illegal to give the remaining water away?
The fact that I buy my water in advance shouldn't enter into it.
MY TOS says my bandwidth is 'up-to' 384Ksec, then I should be able to do what I want 'up-to' 384ksec, whether its a stream of porn at 384 or 3 people using 128.
/. Strikes Again! (Score:5, Funny)
We'll see about that, Timothy. We'll just see.... ;-)
.
Re:/. Strikes Again! (Score:1)
Its so sad... (Score:4, Interesting)
I take off my hat for them for being one of the pioneers of something that clearly is a part of the future... GG
Perhaps... (Score:1)
On the other hand, maybe all their customers just haven't gotten new service yet.
destined to fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think even incompetent managers get T3 lines to look "cool" when several T1 will do.
On the other hand (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention that selling more for less consists of the entire mass market philosophy.
The point being that it's overall profits that count, not unit price.
KFG
Re:On the other hand (Score:2)
This is a good analogy, but I think you are confusing the product and "shelf space". A company (that is not an ISP of course) will rather keep unused "shelf space" to fill with their own production, rather than giving it out to other people.
In other words (and IMHO) you buy extra "shelf space" only if you see a possibility that you will need it and have it available when it happens. Reselling it would not be the best solution, especially when their ISP (whose business IS selling/mass-marketing bandwidth) may be very unhappy as a result.
In the food industry. . . (Score:1)
The analogy stands.
KFG
Re:destined to fail? (Score:4, Informative)
the traffic you have to pay for- the amount of data you're plowing through peering points, or all those freeloading P2P users grabbing anime from japanese users... that costs, and can cost big. most ISPs like to try to keep down that out-of-net data, and so many use things like caching servers, etc. (I'm not an ISP, never have worked for one, and have no interest in doing so, so feel free to slam me here on nitpicky details.)
different types of bandwidth cost different amounts; if you were my neighbour and were downloading from my fileshare over our quasi-local network, nobody is hurt. if you're in sweden, then my ISP (and your ISP) are paying for that data movement.
thusly, if you have a DS3 that's not flat-rate, as it probably isn't, you aren't going to pay as much if it's not fully used. I guess it depends on your ISPs infrastructure design.
for that matter, a fractional DS3 is usually break-even at some point to several DS1's, and SHARPS service makes up for that extra cost- having redundant SONET loops is a big plus when johnny contractor is playing with the backhoe.
Re:destined to fail? (Score:2)
If I understand your post well, this means that you pay a given fee for your network line, but then if you pass a certain treshold of usage (GB/month?) you have to pay more...
Re:destined to fail? (Score:2)
Basically, peering agreements acknowledge the fact that services available on one network have value to another network, and vice-versa. When peering arrangements are in place, service providers are effectively only paying for capacity, and not the bandwidth itself.
This is why multi-media conglomerates owning the last mile is dangerous. It is quite easy for them to justify having poor service to content outside of their network...
exactly. (Score:1)
Re:destined to fail? (Score:1)
Survival of the fittest (Score:5, Funny)
Any other Joltage customers who can comment (Score:5, Funny)
no adverts (Score:5, Insightful)
Joltage website (Score:2, Informative)
http://joltage.com/jsp/home/joltage_network.jsp [joltage.com]
http://joltage.com/jsp/home/provider_program.jsp [joltage.com]
http://joltage.com/jsp/home/consumer_benefits.jsp [joltage.com]
I briefly worked for these guys (Score:5, Informative)
It was painfully obvious that the idea would never fly, though i have to admit that it was a cute technical hack. The "grassroots" systems do not seem to be working in US of A. Years of "customer service" indoctrinated population here to rely on someone else to provide the service. So don't expect anything that requires people to provide initiative (or anything else aside from the cold hard cash) to take off this side of the Atlantic.
On the other hand it seems that in Moscow the only way to get broadband internet is by means of your local microprovider - either tenant organized or, at least, tenant supported. Being unaccostomed to others taking care of one's problems moves people toward self-sufficiency.
In case of services, such as networks and many others this is a great weapon against monopolies taking over.
Re:I briefly worked for these guys (Score:2, Interesting)
I was a Joltage Wireless Provider.. (Score:5, Informative)
Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not slashdotted? (Score:1)
[OT] (Score:2, Funny)
Checkout the title bar of this MSN search error page!
Wireless ISPs... limited viability (Score:2, Interesting)
But commercializing collective bandwidth sharing using fundamentally short-range, modest latency "hotspots"? Especially when it violates TOSes of most residential broadband providers? I just think people got caught up with the wireless hype and didn't think too much about the economics of it.
What idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,138
Expected... (Score:2)
wifi will be free (Score:2, Interesting)
A local cafe/coffee shop just put in free wifi. It is awesome to be able to sit down there and get some work done. It is now my favorite spot for business meetings.
Contrast this to paying $x/hr for a connection at Starbucks. I think that eventually many places like Starbucks will be offering access for free just to keep up.
There also seems to be a lot of community interest in providing access points in many public places. There are two places in the downtown area of my city where the city provides free wifi access. It's good for business and good for the community.
The cost of putting up an access point is pretty cheap. Coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses will start to put them up as a way to attract customers. A lot of communities will be putting access points in public locations. There won't be any reason to pay. Businesses with the pay access will lose business to those who offer free access.
Phew... misread that... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought for a second they were lowering the caffeine content of jolt. Yikes. What a nightmare, first diet Red Bull, now this??
The full Joltage story (as I know it) (Score:4, Informative)
I, too, was a Joltage hotspot provider (and subscriber), and was pretty familiar with the company. As such, I think I can answer a few of the questions that have been posted about these guys:
WHY DIDN'T ANYONE KNOW ABOUT THEM?
Actually, they started off with quite a bit of industry buzz, having launched at Esther Dyson's PC Forum last year. In the beginning (check the articles [business2.com]) they were getting almost as much press as Boingo, which started about the same time. The difference, however, is that Boingo had Sky Dayton (of Earthlink fame) plus tens of millions of dollars to use for marketing. Joltage, in contrast, was a bunch of smart and experienced, but very underfunded, wireless geeks.
DID THEIR STUFF WORK?
Yeah, it actually worked really well. The free hotspot software could be downloaded from all the usual sites (or their website) and turned any PC with an access point into a part of the network. The back-end system was very slick from both the hotspot and user ends, and seemed to work without a hitch. When people used my hotspot, the next month I got a credit through PayPal.
DID THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LEGAL BANDWIDTH RESALE?
Actually, no. They always insisted (and were pretty serious about) having any participating hotspot use legitimate, re-saleable bandwidth. From the very beginning they had a deal with Covad, and eventually they added support from Atlas, Eureka and other broadband providers who offered Joltage hotspot providers fully Joltage-usable DSL for under $50/month. I think they were talking to the other big guys about getting permission for residential users to use bandwidth for Joltage, but I guess those things take time...and they ran out.
WAS THIS THING DOOMED TO FAILURE?
Anyone's guess, but I don't think so...unless you're of the opinion that any pay-for-WiFi solution will fail. Cometa [cometanetworks.com] is launching with the goal of having a hotspot less than a ten minute drive from most people. In contrast, there are over 15,000 existing WLANS in Manhattan alone (as an example). Even a miniscule percentage of those (mostly commercial, and thus usually re-saleable) hotspots participating at no cost to themselves, would have resulted in by far the best WiFi footprint in town.
HOW CAN ANYTHING RELYING ON MOMS AND POPS WORK?
Good question, and that's where they probably fell down. While I think that eventually there will be enough critical mass for a truly organic network, in the near term there just wasn't enough of an overlap between the early adopters with access points, and people with enough entrepreneurial spirit to try to set up a commercial hotspot...even if it was really easy, which the Joltage solution was.
SO, WAS IT ALL MOMS AND POPS?
No, and that ultimately could have been Joltage's salvation...maybe. By the end they were concentrating on supporting WISPS who had a real business incentive to set up hotspots, and some of those were really professional. Check out Urban Hotspots [urbanhotspots.com], SpotWIFI [spotwifi.com], WiFi Spain [wifispain.com], and others.
WERE THEY DOTCOM DREAMERS?
Maybe, but at least they had viable track records, a lot of skills, and dedication. Andrew Weinreich, the founder, was the guy behind SixDegrees, and several of the tech staff came out of Scient and other good shops. The board/angels were big names in the industry, but I guess just didn't have the cash to keep it going. One thing's for sure, they ran a lean shop. The CEO didn't take a salary and the whole staff worked almost for free, in the hopes that they would be paid back on a financing. But for a low-budget shop, they treated everyone well. They even went out classily, paying up the last charges they owed me as a provider, and actually refunding me the unused part of my monthly subscriber fee! Good guys.
SO WHAT HAPPENED?
I think this was a combination of (a) a market where no one at all is generating revenues, let alone making money, yet and therefore needs (b) venture capital, which I gather isn't too available these days. Combine this with Joltage's early focus on a grass-roots model of what you might call 'enlightened economic self-interest' in a market which just wasn't ready for it yet, and you end up with a noble but ultimately unsuccessful business. Ah well. I wish all those guys luck; while they were around they ran a really decent company.
Full email sent to subscribers. (Score:2, Informative)
It is with regret that I am writing to inform you that Joltage will be discontinuing its Wi-Fi subscriber and provider services effective at the end of this month. We will therefore no longer be able to support your operations as a venue for individuals to gain wireless access to the Internet.
Within the next several days we will be remitting to you any earned but unpaid revenue from previously billed subscriber sessions. From this point forward, however, we will no longer be billing subscribers for any future hotspot usage, and as such, we will no longer be accruing any revenues on your behalf. Your hotspot will now automatically enable free access by any former Joltage subscriber as well as new visitors. Please note that this is only a transitional phase, and that as of March 1, 2003, unless you take action, your hotspot will no longer permit Internet access sessions for wireless users.
If at this point you would like to open up your network to provide uncontrolled free to access to any visitors, simply uninstall the Joltage provider software on your host computer, by going to "Add/Remove Programs" in the Control Panel, and selecting Joltage for removal. Then reinstall your access point according to the manufacturer's directions.
Otherwise, to enable you to continue revenue-generating operations with the least possible disruption, I am enclosing a list of alternative back-end software and service providers, in the hope that at least some of their offerings will fit your needs.
Joltage was founded with the vision of offering individuals the opportunity to gain fast and inexpensive wireless Internet access almost anywhere, while providing a significant incentive to operators such as yourself to make wireless hotspots widely available. We still believe in that vision -- perhaps now, more than ever.
Unfortunately, it appears that it will take substantially longer than expected for the significant numbers of users we anticipated on such a network to materialize. And because of the difficult economy, we are no longer able to finance our operations as we had once hoped we would be able to.
All of us at Joltage appreciate your willingness to dream with us and hope that you are able to continue providing this valuable service to your customers.
With best wishes,
Andrew Weinreich
Founder & Chairman
Joltage
Learning from early dial-up ISP history (Score:1)
I was at iPass [ipass.com] early on, when the world was filled with thousands of small ISPs covering their own small corners of the globe. Currently, iPass aggregates and manages more than 20,000 dial-up POPs and 1000+ WiFi hotspots from hundreds of providers. What we saw early in the cycle was that almost all ISPs were marginal or unprofitable They drew from very small local markets (under 1000 users). Primarily, they existed because the owner wanted to be an ISP, not in order to make real money. Most disappeared, were rolled up, or become higher-level VARs/integrators/ASPs.
I believe local hotspot providers look similar: coffee shops and retail locations that can't earn significant profit from WiFi, but are experimenting with it. Don't expect a huge network to appear organically from atoms of goodwill.
Eventually the big slow carriers rolled out nation-sized services. I don't expect that any of these are hugely profitable, but instead are viewed as a necessary part of a full product offering.
IMO, the Joltages and Boingos of the world will be Chapter 11 footnotes. With so few paid WiFi roamers or subscribers (note the distinction here versus "free"), early providers and aggregators will watch their capital leak away, and either exit or subsidize with other service revenue.
This year's big push toward cheap WiFi hardware will help, and some services may be viable next year. See my January screed on this WiFi, 3G and Ten Million Landlords [mironov.com]. I sized the continental US in units of 802.11b coverage at 56,000 access points wide and 28,000 access points tall. (BTW , the newsletter [mailto] is free.)