Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!newsfeeder.gi.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: [Q] ISP :new to ISDN : Pointers?
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 17:37:22 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 248
Message-ID: <31D86F42.747F9B4F@lambert.org>
References: <4q5815$h7l@news.corpcomm.net> <Pine.3.91.960618005848.5013D-100000@fog.cs.odu.edu> <4q6ijt$rsv@hops.entertain.com> <31C9C03C.22722C64@lambert <4qqh9s$ec@anorak.coverform.lan> <4qub5k$7nf@hops.entertain.com> <31D3725F.199410B7@lambert.org> <4r2lq2$2rn@symiserver2.symantec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
tedm@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
]
] >The character of the net must change. Connection to services,
] >rather than servers, and data vaulting and brokering of
] >request/vault destination pairs to minimize traffic.
] >
]
] [more deleted]
]
] I don't agree with this. Don't forget that the cable companies
] are in the content-providing business, and the content they
] provide is entertainment.
] The Ted Turner view of the Internet is a commercialized, glitzy
] place where you click a mouse and a commercial pops up.
I don't see how this is at odds with my view of where I think
things will need to go to handle the sheer volume necessary
to deal with that view.
All I have argued is that the money should not be (and *will*
not be) in selling the pipes.
The money will be in content.
The infrastructure money will be in enabling delivery of
content, most notably, data vaulting/delivery services.
1) I pay a flat rate for my connection to the net based on
pipe size, the same way I pay for unlimited local calling.
2) The data-vaulter pays a flat rate for their connection
to the net, based on pipe size.
3) Commedia Pictures (or whoever) pays rental on vault
space to the data vaulter.
4) I (potentially) pay an additional fee to my net
provider to waive the right to stick commercials in
my face... the same way I pay extra for an unlisted
phone number to get the telco to "diminish" the value
of a business phone to allow a business to call me
and try to sell me something I'm not going to buy
from a cold call anyway.
] Look, during the Great Depression, who made money? The Movie
] and gambling houses. People were willing to spend their last
] dime on entertainment, forget eating!
You are confusing "entertainment" with "vicarious escape from
the depression".
] Why do we pay millions to sports figures who go into a court
] for 2 hours and toss a ball around? It's Entertainment.
You mean why do *you* pay this (since I don't watch it)? *You*
pay it for the vicarious sense of participation you get, to
assuage your voyueristic impulses, and because you probably
could not contribute significantly to projects which would
benefit humanity if you used the time otherwise.
Mainly, it's an issue of whether or not you are capable of
delay of gratification or not.
] The Internet grew up on information providing, not entertainment
] providing. The Telcos are a lot closer to understanding this
] than the cable people ever will be. You may have a pilot project
] going in because your lucky enough to have a few smart guys in
] at TCI, but once the subscriber base gets going TCI is going to
] be looking at it as a captive market for value-added-services.
I see absolutely no difference in terms of quantitative
gratification, other than time-to-return.
And describing the commercial purpose in investing in establishing
a monopoly doesn't really buy you out of how the system is purposed.
The initial intent is at issue.
] For example, you want to play Network Doom, or Network
] Mech-Warrior with your friends down the street, well great,
] oh by the way our routers block such traffic unless you pay for
] our "extended servicing" plan. (Bend over and we will "service"
] you, Har Har) And, since you _already_ have that cable in
] there for data, how about an extra $10 a month for television
] programming?!?!
If concommitant services layered on top of the wire access
become expensive enough, then there will be incentive for the
phone companies to become involved. You seem to believe that
a static state will be established.
The win with TCI competing isn't their "point of view" or
"where they are coming from", but the fact that the limitation
on competition comes from the infrastructure requirements.
The cable companies are the only ones who can compete in terms
of large scale rights of way for laying the wires necessary to
transport the services, whatever they may be.
] The large Telcos like GTE & AT&T long ago bought up all
] the significant cell phone providers. They realized that
]control of the last mile was crucial.
So? Who cares about cell phones?
Cell phones are technologically capabable of being billed
based on connect time. This technological capability should
be discouraged. It matters very little to me that the phone
companies do the discouraging by charging large fees as
opposed to finding some other way to discourage them.
I have yet to see a study comparing pre and post sell phone
introduction accident rates. I suspect I know what the study
would find already.
] It is obvious that the Telcos are aiming wireless traffic to
] be voice-only. They are never going to allow flat-rate service
] into the wireless market, they simply aren't interested in the
] airwaves being locked up by a continuous circuit data pipe.
Well, then screw the wireless market. I don't have a problem
with that.
] I can tell you what the 20-year dream of the Telcos is. It is
] that everyone will have a phone number, phones will be replaced
] by mobile phones in watches, and everyone will have a phone
] number assigned to them. All calls will be measured service.
] The PUC will be unable to control rates because all of the
] existing backup land wire. If some bleeding-heart liberal
] starts whining about the poor old people who cannot afford
] cell-phone-wristwatches and thus need the government to come
] in and take over rates, a-la PUC, the Telcos will simply give
] them a land-line telephone for nothing.
Not going to happen. For one, I will refuse to wear one of
the things. Can you imagine a world in which you *can't* hide
from the telephone? I certainly can't imagine one in which I
will be willing to pay metered rates.
Certainly, you can't argue that metered rates will be anything
but local access to a digital exchange that then goes through
unmetered rate digital backbone to your targets destination
area. Locak->non-meterable->local -- worst case.
] The existing land-line infrastructure will be then be free
] to be converted over to exclusive data usage. This will be
] great for us data-heads, because we will end up with a
] situation where the Telco's make the bulk of their money off
] the wireless voice circuit revenue stream.
Like GTE converted SpaceNet? I don't think so...
] Personally, I'd rather see 3 or 4 parallel sets of wire coming
] to my house, owned by competing companies, than a single set
] of wires that the government owns. That's all we need, more
] government in there retarding the growth of the InfoBahn.
I'd like to see one set of wires, owned by the government (or
me) going from my house to a central fan out office, where anyone
who wants to run a comms company can rent a closet and stick
equipment, and changing my mind about who I buy my phone service
from is as simple as saying "connect switchblock A-14/17-19 to
provider block PR-21/A, please".
[ ... governmnet ... ]
] Pricing regulation is fine, it doesen't take a rocket scientist
] to understand that. The thought of turning over the
] data cable infrastructure to those folks makes me shudder.
Why do you think that the govenrment is going to be able to
run dialinging equipment at all? I'm only talking about the
wiring physical plant.
] >The net is, and will be, for the forseeable future, biased
] >toward sites with higher bandwidth. I can hardly *believe*
] >people "surfing" ("slogging") "the web" at 28.8. I don't have
] >the patience. For some things, like server push animation
]
] [more deleted]
]
] That is because you run with graphics enabled. I do all
] my web-surfing with graphic turned off.
And obtain a significantly lesser service as a result.
[ ... ]
] I have also discovered that web pages that look terrible with
] no graphics are usually put together by people who have nothing
] to contribute to the Web. What most of these guys have forgotten
] is that the graphics are simply an aid to the basic material that
] should already be there. If the site is built backwards, in
] other words the written material is an aid to the graphics, it
] is usually because the material is so sparse that it is worthless.
On the other hand, a picture is worth a thousand words.
As I've said before, telecommuting is not going to go anywhere in
mainstream business until a telecommuter can attend meetings.
Try that with "the graphics off".
] >If I were the telco, and I were interested in short term
] >profits and amortizing my old equipment over the remainder
] >of the lifetime of the universe instead of its useful lifetime,
] >you can be damn sure that if a flat rate ISDN tarrif went
] >in, I'd simply refuse to deploy. Why should I do something
] >that will eat my short term profits?
]
] [more deleted]
]
] The PUC will get you eventually anyway. Here in Portland OR we
] have a situation where the Portland carrier, US West, is
] lightyears behind the times.
My RBOC is also US West.
] At the Western end of the Portland city limits is the City
] of Beaverton, which is served by GTE. GTE actually submitted
] a request to the PUC last month to be allowed to
] do flat-rate charges on ISDN. Meanwhile, US West has had so
] many customer complaints (their ISDN pricing is much higher)
] that the PUC has threatened to fine them within six months
] unless the level of complaints drops. In fact, some of
] the muckety-mucks at US West have been booted out over this,
] that's what kept the company from being fined.
That's easy. Don't offer the service. You can't get complaints
over a service you don't offer.
Problem solved, Portland screwed.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.