Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:33728 comp.sys.intel:31198 comp.unix.bsd:16061 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8107 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9173 comp.unix.misc:15911 comp.os.linux.development:23253 comp.os.linux.misc:34794 comp.os.386bsd.development:3132 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5240 comp.os.misc:3764
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news.cs.utah.edu!news.provo.novell.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: X on dial-in
Date: 6 Feb 1995 19:40:33 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <3h5tvh$a2t@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <3f44s2$jqm@maverick.maverick.tad.eds.com> <D36ry6.4H3@kerberos.demon.co.uk> <D3A5Iu.pD@park.uvsc.edu> <fgoldstein.131.001DC8B4@bbn.com> <D3C4Bp.I46@park.uvsc.edu> <fgoldstein.135.00237A26@bbn.com> <D3Fp3y.1EI@park.uvsc.edu> <fgoldstein.145.006C7271@bbn.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) wrote:
] >Or on speech calls, start twiddling bits that won't affect the
] >conversation quality but will dump a data conncetion made over a
] >speech line. This would be a cool way to do you in, since it
] >wouldn't affect standard analog modems.
]
] Au contraire, 28.8 modems are very, very sensitive. But in any case, this
] costs major money to do. Clear channels are cheap channels! Why would a Bell
] go out of its way to waste money to offend customers? I mean there is
] precedent for it, but they have bigger problems nowadays. Can you spell
] "Teleport"? "MCI Metro"? "Cablevision"?
The cable companies have no back channel.
No one else has wires going to your house, or right of way or the
money to lay them.
I don't see that they have any real large problems.
] >You are out of your mind if you think you will be paying subsidized
] >speech rates for data for the rest of time.
]
] I am not paying subsidized anything! Only some faux-accountants for the phone
] companies make up stories about local usage costing money. (Subsidies apply
] to the fixed monthly portion of most residential rates, beginning at
] measured rates, but the incremental cost of flat-rate usage tends to be
] compensatory.) It costs them next to nothing -- the lines on the poles cost
] the money, busy or idle. Flat rate residential usage carries monthly fees
] that cover costs.
Whatever you think of their accounting practices, those practices
have resulted in the fact that they own the wires and you do not.
The entire crux of my postings on this subject is the dichotomy
between what customers want to buy and what companies want to sell.
For the most part, the cable companies want an interactive home
shopping club. The 1-800 backchannel that already exists is
sufficient for that. As Wired Magazine reported, the only thing
stopping video on demand is lack of demand.
] Only the worst abusers (who _never_ hang up) cost them money. Those users are
] the ones who screw it up for everyone, and they're more likely to be using
] analog modems!
I agree with the basic idea, since this is precisely what I referred
to when I noted the precedent of the phone company requiring business
lines for residential data users. I would further stipulate that
the "offenders" are likely to be destinations rather than sources,
such as bulletin board systems.
As such, it is a fictitios distinction, since a virtual circuit
requires a source and a destination in any case.
What is really being bitched about is the full time consumtion of a
switch slot by a single line.
In a very real sense, the phone company charges for switching.
Your use of DOVBS is not currently large impact, primarily because
there are some implied assumptions of which you and I are aware,
but which other readers may not see.
The first is that there is not inter-LADA routing. This is precisely
what US West has been offering in Utah for four years now. In the
simplest terms, it means that you must involve a middleman to get
point-of-presense on the net, and that that middleman must be in
your same "telephone exchange" (LADA), or you are screwed to the
tune of about $800/month.
That's fine for you as a service provider, but sucks if you are
a customer in a low demand area. Just as some customers in low
demand areas still have pulse dialing to put up with. There are
still economies of scale involved, and they will dictate the
equipment that gets installed. As a provider (middleman), you
make the choice in your arrangement of which LADA's to point of
presence in and which get "snubbed".
The second is that eventually, this type of usage will reach
saturation, and more intra-LADA loops will be required. And rates
will go up to pay for this. Saturation in this direction is an
intrinsically bad thing, as it removes the distinction between
intra- and inter-LADA routing. Basically rasing the price of
intra-LADA routing in the long run -- the price of "subsidized"
rates.
] (For one thing, ISDN's faster connect times -- I get 3 sec. on
] DOSBS, 1 sec ISDN and 2 sec inband handshake -- make long data calls
] unnecessary.) The tariff asnwer to this is "threshhold pricing", where it's
] measured with a large allowance. (US West just came out with an ISDN tariff
] with a 200 hour/month threshhold.) This however is controversial because it
] provides a "nose in the tent" for mandatory residential measured service; they
] just crank down the threshhold as they go along. Very controversial. Bell
] Canada is finding that out now....
Tell me about it. If you haven't notices, I'm in a US West service
area. As is most of the Western US. Why do you think I'm so wound
up about this whole thing?
I'm well aware of the new Tarrif, and of the camel nose it represnts.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.