Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:35273 comp.sys.intel:32837 comp.unix.bsd:16334 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8250 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9398 comp.unix.misc:16316 comp.os.linux.development:23918 comp.os.linux.misc:36299 comp.os.386bsd.development:3284 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5578 comp.os.misc:3878
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!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: flat rates for Internet/phone (Re: X on dial-in)
Date: 8 Mar 1995 22:13:26 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <3jla66$hvi@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <D3s19v.4M7@pe1chl.ampr.org> <3jg3g0$n0p@park.uvsc.edu> <3jiddj$5e7@deep.rsoft.bc.ca> <3jith7$81c@park.uvsc.edu> <3jjn6e$4oi@trance.helix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
dlinford@trance.helix.net (D. Linford) wrote:
] >] The same goes for the time-division-multiplexed bus that the switch
] >] probably uses. Do we really want to pay for a bus capable of handling
] >] a couple of gigabits per second when one handling a hundred megabits
] >] per second will do?
] >
] >I don't see where a hundred megabits per second * 3.3 (100%/30%)
] >multiplies out to a couple of gigabits per second.
] >
] >Correct me if my math is wrong.
]
] Well it isn't raw bandwidth that counts. Their a certain
] amount of paths available at any one time. a circuit that is up for a
] long time can have an impact much greater than the tiny bit of
] bandwidth that it takes. Like if your car stalls on a bridge, it
] doesn't have the same impact as being stalled on a side street. Inside
] a switch, though, there is no telling what will be the bridge or
] side street at any one moment. Your math isn't wrong, it just applies
] to a much less convoluted space.
First off, you already agreed to 30% of connected customers as
rated capacity. That means paying 3.3 times for everything to
get to 100% of connected customers as rated capacity. That's
assuming you can't share things that are already being amortized.
Like the wires to peoples houses, or the dig-up-and-fill-in-holes
cost. In other words, I am being overgenerous when I grant you
3.3 times the cost.
If you believe switches act the way you have proposed, or if you
own switches that do, then you have been gyped. You should buy
your switches from Nothern Telecom. A DMS100 is a good ISDN
capable switching system that doesn't exhibit your "stalled on the
bridge behaviour".
If it's as convoluted a problem as you suggest, then you have the
wrong people employed to solve the problem.
[ ... a packet instead of circuit switched system ... ]
] >It will offer the advantage that they need less equipment to
] >provide the same data services. Assuming they want to provide
] >my data services. If they don't, then I'm perfectly willing to
] >give my $60/month to TCI instead of US West.
]
] And people are not supposed to talk to each other on the phone
] in order to give you cheap data service? If you were to segregate the
] data service, you would have a very hard time affording any sort of
] data connection to the home.
No, people are supposed to digitize then compress their voice
before sending it over the packet switch network.
Just like is done now for all major long distance carriers and
most ROBCs.
I am not suggesting segregating voice and data services. I am
suggesting doing away with analog lines.
] >Maybe you haven't noticed, but the various aspects of the phone
] >company have been literally climbing on each other's heads to
] >become "the infrastructure providers" for "the information super
] >highway".
] >
] >Either they really want this, or they've been climbing for nothing.
]
] But none of the options are going to be set up using
] simplistic packet switched services. ATM is "packet switched", but is
] designed to encapsulate circuit switched data. If it weren't for the
] need for connection oriented services, you wouldn't have ATM at all in
] the form it is in.
Please. ATM is a 27% overhead pig of a standard that's a cruddy
48 bytes of data compromise between the competing 32 and 64 byte
standards that spawned it.
It's not circuit switched data that imposes this on ATM, it's
video data that does it. The amount of data necessary for a
sustainable frame rate sufficient for non-canned video is so
high that it imposes granularity requirements for pool retention
times. If it weren't for *video*, we wouldn't have ATM in the
form that it's in. Voice data is so *much* smaller, and it has
much less critical time requirements because a reduced pool size
can still retain relatively *huge* amounts of data.
Unless you're from Utah too, you've never seen anything as large
as a state-wide ATM network in operation.
] >] Packet switching is really much better for computers, yes. So get a
] >] leased line to your ISP POP and you'll have cheap packet switching.
] >
] >Sorry, but screw "my" ISP POP. I want to be my own POP, thank
] >you. One less middleman.
]
] You have to connect somewhere. Unless you are a carrier, you
] got to connect to someones point of presence (even if it is a
] satellite). If you are a carrier, you still have to connect to other
] carriers points of presence...
Oh, yes. But at some point the benefit is mutual and there isn't
a huge useless charge for the priveledge of connecting to their
router (or for them connecting to yours).
] >] >Triple rates in most areas of the US is ~$20/month * 3 = $60/month.
] >]
] >] I'd hate to pay that. I currently pay about $35/month for my two
] >] telephone lines. I couldn't afford $120/month.
] >
] >Why would you need two lines? Why wouldn't you just make sure
] >the one line you had was fat enough for the traffic instead?
]
] Maybe to talk to someone?
Use digital instead of analog communications equipment. It tends
to be cheaper to build anyway.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.