Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:34044 comp.sys.intel:31475 comp.unix.bsd:16123 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8146 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9224 comp.unix.misc:15988 comp.os.linux.development:23347 comp.os.linux.misc:35076 comp.os.386bsd.development:3178 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5332 comp.os.misc:3792
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nntp.et.byu.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: 11 Feb 1995 04:27:51 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <3hhec7$g53@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <3f44s2$jqm@maverick.maverick.tad.eds.com> <3h4363$jqv@deep.rsoft.bc.ca> <D3LFnr.KJG@bonkers.taronga.com> <D3ME6C.14t@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D3ns6F.2w9@bonkers.taronga.com> <D3pF0z.1rq@pe1chl.ampr.org> <3hdf66$qfn@park.uvsc.edu> <D3s19v.4M7@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D3sMnw.8vE@proteon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
jfw@proteon.com (John Woods) wrote:
] Because I (for example) have a flat rate Internet connection,
] I *know* what it cost me to be connected to the Internet this month. I
] *know* what it will cost next month. I *know* what it will cost a year
] from now, assuming my IP provider remains in business, and that the local
] telco doesn't change the ground rules.
My initial point at the start of this whole thread, when someone
suggested ISDN, was that it was *not* a guaranteed flat rate even
if it was currently a flat rate in their little area.
If their little area is California, they pay message units because
some idiots somewhere abused DOVBS to the point that the carrier
was not making the number of pennies they thought they should.
If their little area is British Telecom or many other places in
the world, then they pay a metered rate, regardless.
If their little area is US West (an RBOC), then the new tarrif
makes it flat rate up to 200 hours a month, with the potential
that US West can lower the number of hours at any time with no
prior notice without being retarriffed -- a loophole.
My second point, after some discussion, was that US West is not
offering standard ISDN. Initially, US West started out with an
incompatible standard because they got going before everyone
else (pre 1991, in fact). My definition of "standard ISDN" is
only narrow enough to mean "you can plug it in the back of a
Sun or NeXT machine, in what is labelled the ISDN port. Even
if this is what they are now offerring, it isn't the Basic Rate
service of everywhere else: 64/64/16. It's 64/16/16. This is
true of the majority of the intermountain west served by US West.
I personnally will not find this to be a barrier to initial sign
up, but I will certainly be looking over my shoulder for a rate
change. In any case, what "ISDN" actually means varies from
region to region, so the pro ISDN argument of "universal
availability" falls flat.
Followed by much fussing about "parinoia" by others, my third
point was simply that once you had a data connection to the
backbone, if it were unmetered, there is nothing preventing
you from using your data channel for a long distance voice call.
I think this is the primary motivation for metered rates, and I
have yet to see an argument refuting that. I currently have
this capability with a Gravis Ultrasound ("Sound Blasters" and
others are insufficient to the task of supporting simultaneous
record/playback for a full duplex connection) using a program
called 'vat', which is available for most common platforms (a
DOS box is not a platform). When a sufficient number of people
have this capability, metering is inevitable.
] If I paid by the packet for sent and received data, I might pay
] less (my flat rate is pretty high), or I might pay more: even at
] $0.01 per minute, if my line were to stay busy all month (lots
] and lots and LOTS of junk email) I'd have a pretty frighteningly
] high bill. (And if I paid only for sent data, well, someone only
] has to ftp to my site and repeatedly take copies of some handy
]file to run up my bill.) No telco is likely to charge that little,
] so you have to count on light utilization.
Exactly. But "You Will.".
The FTP issue is resolved by you charging for FTP access.
I agree that this is not an acceptable option.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.