Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:33730 comp.sys.intel:31200 comp.unix.bsd:16062 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8108 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9174 comp.unix.misc:15912 comp.os.linux.development:23257 comp.os.linux.misc:34799 comp.os.386bsd.development:3133 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5241 comp.os.misc:3765 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!caen!hookup!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!info-server.bbn.com!SNIT.BBN.COM!fgoldstein From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) 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: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:34:07 LOCAL Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. Lines: 81 Message-ID: <fgoldstein.148.002E662C@bbn.com> References: <3f44s2$jqm@maverick.maverick.tad.eds.com> <D36ry6.4H3@kerberos.demon.co.uk> <D3A5Iu.pD@park.uvsc.edu> <fgoldstein.131.001DC8B4@bbn.com> <D3C4Bp.I46@park.uvsc.edu> <fgoldstein.135.00237A26@bbn.com> <D3Fp3y.1EI@park.uvsc.edu> <fgoldstein.145.00 NNTP-Posting-Host: snith.bbn.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4] In article <3h5tvh$a2t@park.uvsc.edu> Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >The cable companies have no back channel. Old cable plant has no back channel. And I generally dismiss "data over cable" as pie-in-the-sky speculation, for a variety of reasons. BUT lately we're seeing a new twist. In the U.K., there's a major cable TV company called "NYNEX". They offer more than video... it's genuine local telephone competition. I think US West is there too. (Why do you think they invest so little in their home turf? The grass looks greener...) So telcos have the chance of getting competition from other telcos, buying up cable companies and using their rights-of-way to install two-way plant. The courts are starting to allow it. And even an probably-idle threat is often good as a threat. >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. Ah, but you miss the beauty of it. Telcos don't _control_ what they own. In most states, they're subject to regulation by politically-sensitive commissions. And if that fails, there's the legislature. Here in MA, we had unlimited free directory assistance for years because one pissant legislator made it his holy crusade and had it made a law, above regulators' reach. Eventually NYNEX bargained for a 10-call allowance. Likewise, mandatory measured service for residence is such a hot button that most state regulators or legislators (it only takes "either/or") will respond to pressure to prevent it. Not every state, but it has happened over and over. It's not DOSBS ISDN that they're upset by. They see modems as a revenue source, and that's POTS. They see teenagers as a revenue source, just talking as they do, and that's POTS. They don't care how you use their networks. They just see revenue. And regulators will tell them how and where they will raise it. I personally have appeared at Mass. DPU hearings. Too many people complain on the net when they should be complaining where it matters! >...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. Bell telcos (not "independents") are prohibited from inter-LATA (LADA is a Russian car) connections, but they are trying to get that overturned in exchange for a more competitive local environment. Of course they want only token competition; this is a big battle among lobbyists in Washington right now. >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". Actually, as an inter-LATA provider, we need only hook up one POP in each LATA and we have access for 3-6c/min to almost everyone in the LATA for dial services. Leased lines are awfully costly, though, due to the "three segment" pricing. >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. The marginal cost/minute of LOCAL intra-LATA calls is under a penny per minute for almost all cases. The marginal cost/minute for TOLL intra-LATA calls is under a nickle a minute in almost all cases. Measured usage rates are almost always a lot higher; it's a pure profit item for the telcos, an artifact of non-cost-based monopoly pricing. Since the monopoly is only slightly eroded, we still depend on regulators, who have competing interests to balance. Squeaky wheels and all that jazz... ___ Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.