Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:34792 comp.sys.intel:32325 comp.unix.bsd:16265 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8215 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9352 comp.unix.misc:16206 comp.os.linux.development:23672 comp.os.linux.misc:35816 comp.os.386bsd.development:3255 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5516 comp.os.misc:3843 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 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!hookup!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!mole-end!mat From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us Subject: Re: flat rates for Internet/phone (Re: X on dial-in) Message-ID: <1995Feb26.032518.9585@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> Organization: : References: <D3s19v.4M7@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D4DH09.BAo@pe1chl.ampr.org> <phrD4JrEA.2ss@netcom.com> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 03:25:18 GMT Lines: 48 In article <phrD4JrEA.2ss@netcom.com>, phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes: > Lots of people are saying the same thing as you now, that > it costs TPC a lot more to service your line if you use it > all the time (always connected to the same local number, say) > than if you use it only a little bit. > > But is that a documentable fact, or just speculation? The main cost > of providing you with local phone service is the wire between the > switch and your house, and that wire is there whether you use it or > not. Next comes some analog electronics to interface your phone to > the switch and provide ringing voltage, etc. That too is there for > every phone, whether or not the phone is in use. Next, I believe most > current switches are digital, so there are some codecs. I don't know > if these are typically shared between a larger number of lines in > current switches (practice varies). After that presumably there is > some kind of backplane that all the conversations are multiplexed > into. Having more conversations active at once might increase the > bandwidth needs of this part, but inside-the-box is so cheap these > days that adding enough for one additional 24 hr/day phone call would > cost close to zero, I'd hope. Actually not. I don't have the actual figures--go over to comp.dcom.telecom for the expertise--but within the network itself, from the concentrator in your neighborhood (if there is one) to the local Central Office to the trunks between switches in the CO to the various (RBOC and long-distance provider) interoffice trunks, there are enough paths (multiplexed or otherwise) for something like five percent of the subscribers to be talking to other subscribers at once. There are facilities to allow only one or two percent of the subscribers to receive dial tone or to be dialing at once. For data connections that are going to be up all the time, the best thing would be some kind of packet-switched WAN service. But is it coming? The next best thing, as far as telco economics is concerned, is a `wired-up' connection that bypasses the ordinary switching fabric and goes through a special switch (`frame') that's meant to hold calls up indefinitely. For you and me, such things get billed at business rates. -- (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ (Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)