Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

Well, one wonders how AOL still strike to survive after all these years. MSN gone. Yahoo gone.

We just had this discussion at work.. one of the recent reports stated over 2 million subscribers still pulling in ~600 million a year just from that (pales in comparison to ad revenue and past performance, but still... 2 million!). The average per-account income was something like $21/month.

That's more an indicator of how large parts of America don't have affordable or any broadband access. I'd trust AOL to be around longer than NetZero or any other bottom feeder ISP.

Well, the AARP has 38 million members, so that's not too surprising, I guess. (I'm saying that a lot of old folks don't realize there is an Internet, or email, or online news, etc. without AOL.)

My grandparents still use AOL, because they live in the absolute middle of nowhere (aka they drive roughly an hour to be able to do groceries). Their options have been basically dial up, or extremely expensive satellite internet.

Verizon has been promising the little place they live for around 5 years that they will eventually get some sort of service, however last time i was there i could barely get any cell coverage.

My previous company built web caching servers for independent ISPs. We served a bunch of providers in rural areas who offered WiMAX to customers that were too far out to get DSL or cable internet, and with lower latency than satellite. It was usually somewhat expensive, compared to DSL/cable, but the ISP could profitably serve individual customers the "last mile" (or last dozen miles, with a repeater or two). A lot of those ISPs died as antitrust regulation in the broadband industry failed and their nearby customers got poached by the telcos and cable operators, making it harder to operate at large enough scale to make it work. So, there was a moment where it looked like a lot of those difficult to reach customers would be reached by ISPs willing to roll out WiMAX with tall antennas and repeaters. But, it didn't work out, and most of them died.

Anyway, I agree with you that there are still stretches of the US that have people but no broadband. And, my primary internet is mobile broadband (from two different carriers, since I travel and often find only one of them works reliably), so I know the pain of it first-hand. But, still, I'd wager that most AOL customers are older folks (even if the reason is also that people living in rural areas tend to be older).

Wi-Max or alternatives like DIY long range Wi-Fi, cannot have both 10 miles (~15 km) range and high throughput. At the very minimum because earth curvature, and also because the radio signal has to go right through the moisture in between the sender and receiver. I came up a few years ago with the idea that it would be possible to use the mesospheric layer as a passive relay for communications at 40 miles range in desert areas. This even during daylight. It is inspired by the "laser guide star" in astronomy with coding à la 802.11 (Golay/LDPC).

More about it here: https://padiracinnovation.org/2017/01/10/mesosphere-light-sc...

Sure you can, you just need a bigger tower; you can get gigabit speeds with microwaves, no sweat, very directional too. Signal loss due to moisture? Up the power. It doesn't work? Use more power, or add 5 feet to the tower and try again. Remember, if brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it.

BTW: I like how you kinda gloss over the advanced math for atmospheric corrections. The idea is interesting, though.

Thanks for having read the stuff.

* About the horizon problem: You need a tower which is 90 meters (270 feet) high to reach a 40 km receiver. It exists but it is pretty costly ... and hugly.

* About the power problem, this is regulated. For Wi-Fi I think it is around 80mW. It is not much.

* About glossing on math. You are right about it, but after all this is well known: The idea is used heavily in astronomy exactly for this purpose since 10 years. No need to reinvent what more gifted people have already invented.

"if brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it"

You just made my day with that phrase.

It's also almost pure profit, compared to the ads business. Something like 90% of AOL's actual profit is from dialup.

Yahoo is going to join AOL as part of Verizon. So Yahoo managed to outlive them by a few years at least.

Rural areas rely on dial up internet

How many rural areas still use dialup but don't have access to cellular yet?

My grand parents do not get celluar where they live in very remote Montana. Apparently ether Verizon/AT&T (i can't remember which) has been promising them Celluar/Cable service for over 5 years now, and has never come through with it.

Honestly i think the only reason they even pay for AOL is because they use it to keep in touch with relatives via email.

Sadly every cellular map I've seen has a big black hole with is Wyoming/Montana. I feel for your grandparents, beautiful country but no connectivity.

Sounds like an opportunity for someone to come along and create a new network based on open source mobile stuff.

http://osmocom.org/

"Open source mobile stuff." - Good plan, sounds well thought out, sign me up.

If the CCC can do it every year, Burning Man can do it, Niue can do it, an island off Nicaragua can do it, then the middle of the USA can too.

http://wiki.rhizomatica.org/index.php/Rhizomatica_GSM http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Building-a-GSM-network... http://itp.junglebrains.com/setting-up-your-own-cellular-net...

And it would, except that Charter communications owns rights to the cellular spectrum there. So once such a system were in place Charter would no doubt come in and take it away from you and then operate it at a profit if they could.

A lot. Most of the upper midwest lacks cellular coverage. You need to drive to the top of a hill to even hit a gsm signal at one bar. The old analog signals were better but they're gone now.

> Most of the upper midwest lacks cellular coverage.

What now? This simply isn't true.

Its spotty at best, when you live in an area with hills all over, LTE/gsm is not your friend.

Verizon and AT&T have LTE coverage over most of the Midwest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com