Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26398; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190233.WAA26398@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #254 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:33:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (Brad Allen) Re: ISP Subsidy? (Gary Novosielski) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (John Stanley) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Greg Hennessy) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (David Richards) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Rahul Dhesi) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Bill Sohl) The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Joey Lindstrom) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 18 Sep 1997 16:31:32 -0400 Organization: Q > The ISPs along with AT&T, Apple Computer, Netscape, Microsoft, > Compaq Computer, IBM, and a host of other computer companies demanded > and won continued FCC intervention to prevent market pricing on local > telephone company services used by ISPs to reach their customers in > the first place. Since the initial breakup of AT&T back in 1983, the > FCC has exempted Internet providers from paying the same kind of > per-minute access charges to local phone companies that long distance > companies have to pay to connect their customers. This has allowed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Internet providers to pay the flat business rate to local phone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > companies that ordinary local business customers pay -- which in turn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > has allowed them to offer flat-rate service for the Internet to their > customers. I take it you consider the backbones free? When's the last time peering at an interexchange point was free? When's the last time leasing fiber under the sea was free? When's the last time paying "settlement" fees to large ISPs that have good backbones from hither to fro was free? When's the last time that setting up cooperatives to make it more cost effective to deal with these settlement issues was free? Hey, btw, when's the last time that leasing a line from the local "previous"-monopoly "baby bell" was free? Oh, let's not forget the free connection that MAE charges you to connected to their POP. Hey, those free routers are really useful too. Oh, the free labor and free service contracts for all of these components is really a nice perk. Uh hum. Oh, I almost forgot --- and those large energy companies going through their own industry shakeup, hey, they love giving ISPs power for free, too, when used for the backbone! Radio equipment is free too. And setting it up! Wonderful price. Not to mention all the free real estate space that ISPs use. Oh -- I'm talking about the backbone connections the ISP has here, which you probably don't think exists, so it must be free. You betch'a. What you are forgetting is that this "flat rate" you speak of is actually far above a reasonable profit margin for the local phone company, since the connections are going through local networks with high capacity, and furthermore the biggest blunder in your argument is that the backbone that the ISPs use does NOT EXIST! Else, they'd be called "Service Providers", not "Internet Service Providers". The only problems that may come about due to overcongestion and cost of providing service are the stupid engineering and layout of the system by the local phone companies to not take advantage of the simple efficiencies involved. Take my connection. I have a 24 hour a day, 365 day a year wire from my home to my phone company, and there is another similar connection between them and my ISP. If the phone company is worried about congestion between their own switch and their own switch, which are in the same building, then they have a big problem. I'm just using the connection that's already there from me to the switch and from the switch to the ISP. The buildings' switch's being full is mere bullshit; they cost less than the wire that is already 24 365. In the case of interswitch congestion, the local bell companies haven't exactly made a point of tarrifing a seperate charge for that problem; instead they install enormous capacity. If they complain, it's because they designed the charge system in such a way as to complain. I consider it fair to ask ISPs to charge slightly higher rates for interswitch links, if they are also given reasonable rates to interconnect with the various other switches as well using their own communications network. Yes, that might cost the ISPs a little bit more, but considering the business, feature and flexibility possibilities, not by much, if any, will there be an end charge on that; the worst problem with this scenereo is that the local phone company previous-monopoly would now have a bigger network as their competition. The local phone companies are involved in anticompetitive measures, and regardless of whether they are paying you, you are definately a part of their scheme to obtain those ends. You are the hyprocrite. Wait, I seem to have missed something: > Worse than the actual costs of the upgrades for ISPs is the fact > that those investments are being made in traditional analog voice > phone lines and switches, instead of the phone system moving the ISP > phone traffic onto high-speed digital switching systems right at > customers homes, an approach that would be more efficient and create > the basis for upgrading all data traffic. Most of the Baby Bells > began offering such high-speed digital services for ISPs in 1997, but ^^^^ > the Internet providers have little incentive to pay for such services > as long as they can convince the FCC to allow them to use the local > phone lines like ordinary business users. Wow! And you're complaining about the way things were before 1997! Good for you! Of course, there is SO much time between 1997 and this year -- all that time to actually find out about these wonderful services you're talking about (what are they, anyway? DSP? Nope. Cable Modem? Nope. I can't get either, here. I'm in the middle of Manhattan!) We're talking about really fast companies, too -- companies, that when the customers have a large need for things back in the 1970s and 1980s, they are so fast to come to market that they have something in 2000s that answers those requests!!!! Well, at least we wish it were that good ... I *hope* they'll have *something* in my lifetime that is faster than ISDN. BTW, I'm thinking of augmenting my network with "Cellular Vision" here in the NYC area, and jettisoning that awful Time Warner Cable that I have. I'm sure that puts you up in arms -- you'd probably want a "air tax" that gets paid directly to Bell Atlantic, because Cellular Vision "threatens their monopoly". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:59:03 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? In TELECOM Digest V17 #252, Fred Goodwin wrote: > ... I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. ... [T]he cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Well, there's a drug store about two blocks from here. When I need a newspaper, I walk down there and buy it. There's no need to get in the car since it's so close. But I notice that a lot of people do drive to that same store. In fact, in the last year, since they've started carrying milk and bread, auto traffic has increased -- so much so that they've been forced to add a whole new section to the parking lot. It occurred to me that this must be pretty expensive, and that I wasn't getting any use out of it, because I always walk to the store. In fact prices are a little higher than I remember, and I'm sure this has something to do with it. The cost of that parking lot is being borne by all the customers, not just those who use it. I got mad, and asked the lady behind the counter how come she was forcing me to give a subsidy to all the non-pedestrian customers of the store, and I demanded a lower price for my newspaper than the guy behind me in line, who had driven in from the street just as I arrived. She just looked at me funny. (I think she's a communist.) ------------------------------ From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 18 Sep 1997 13:58:15 GMT Organization: Oregon State University In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. Anyone who has a teenager knows this. Anyone who has a computer at home knows this. Anyone who has called any company with any sort of automated telephone system knows this. The typical data call I make lasts three minutes. How long does Mrs. Smith spend on the phone to her Mom? I have been paying a premium for a line that I almost never use just so I can use anther line for my computer. I had to pay extra for my "voice" line so I could pay more for unlimited calling on my "data" line. I have been paying this "subsidy" that the telcos are whining about, but I don't see them rushing to refund my money. > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. I would submit that the telco should have used the premium I have been paying for seven years for unlimited calling on my voice line to keep its services up to par. They demanded that I get a more expensive line than I needed for a line I make almost no calls on, just because I had one line that was unlimited calling. If they didn't mean to charge me more, then I want my money back. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection The ISP isn't making the call, it shouldn't have to pay more than any other business does. I am already paying more for flat-rate than I have use, so why should I pay more? ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:52:08 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500, Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, damnit. You obviously don't have teenagers. :-) > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Nope. Poor foresight on the part of a regulated monopoly utility is _not_ the fault of the customers. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. You might, potentially, use that word, were it not for the fact that the RBOC's themselves are one of the beneficiaries, they being in the ISP business, too. But the sweepingly fast advance of wireless is going to make this a moot point shortly, I suspect, anyway -- as I noted in a posting a couple days back. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: gsh@clark.net (Greg Hennessy) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:00:24 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. I deny that, since calls to an ISP are residential calls. This is simply trying to ghettoize internet users and suck more money out of them. ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 11:56:29 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, calls to ISPs are longer than 'typical' residential calls. But so are calls to BBS systems -- multiline BBS systems date back at least 15 years (Ripco does, anyway); they're just more popular now. And there have been rumors of an 'FCC mandated BBS tax' for almost that long. The problems of congestion and switch capacity upgrades are the result of telco monopolies not being prepared for a sudden shift in consumer calling habits, and chosing a rate structure that encourages certain behavior. Strange how I don't see any complaints about congestion in the Chicago area -- only in the last couple of months (coincidentally just after the launch of Ameritech's own internet service) has my ISP received _ANY_ customer gripes about 'fast busy' or 'The number you have dialed...' intercept messages. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Bullshit. The telco proposes their own tariff, they chose to make packet-switched data service so expensive as to be out of the reach of the end user. because I suddenly order, use, and PAY FOR more circuits than they anticipated is a problem, but the telco dug their own grave by how they set up the rates. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. The local telephone _monopoly_ chose to set rates so as to discourage use of X.25 (packet-switched) services and encourage long holding times by endorsing flat-rate local calling. Compare this to Europe, where X.25 is in widespread use and untimed calls are generally an unheard of luxury. ------------------------------ From: c.c.eiftj@15.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 03:38:41 GMT Organization: a2i network In Fred Goodwin writes: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Um, the situation is much simpler than that. Short calls are typically shorter than long calls. Let me repeat that: Long calls are longer. Short calls are shorter. > OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that > blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or > its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch > upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of > service to its other, non-ISP customers. You want heavier users to pay more. Then why not simply make heavier users pay more? I don't understand why it must be based on whether or not they call an ISP. I know people who are on the phone for hours and hours talking to their friends -- should they or should they not pay more? I know people who call their ISP for five minutes a day, max. Should they or should they not pay less? I really don't understand why people try to make it so complicated. If long calls are the problem, penalize the long calls. Let me ask you something, hypothetically. Suppose people of a certain race (call it Yellow, or Green, or Black, or whatever) were observed to make longer calls on the average than people of other races. What would your preference be, if you had to choose one of these two possibilities? - Charge all people of that race more for phone calls, regardless of the length of their call; - Charge people based on the length of their call regardless of their race. Explain and justify your choice. Rahul Dhesi ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:12:30 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Not in a household like mine with three kids. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Thousands of business lines generate huge minutes of use on a flat rate basis yet you wish to ignore those users and only focus on ISPs because they have tilted the model previously used. How do you identify ONLY the cost causing lines since they are only incoming calls terminating on them? > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Yet most ISPs busiest times are outside the normal peak hour periods. It seems there's more trouble with ISPs that don't provide enough lines (thus causing busy conditions to their users) than the network being short of switch capacity or trunking. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 03:07:20 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Pardon me, a relative neophyte, for butting in here ... but it seems to me like we're going to see more problems like this Medic-Alert thing happening with every new area code split that comes down the line. It's another argument in favour of overlays, but I won't get into that - I'll just say that Mark Cuccia is God and that's that. :-) But I think it's completely AMAZING that the CPUC decided to change its mind and grant one area the right to keep the old area code while switching the other, more-populated, area to the new NPA, simply because Medic-Alert *HAD* to keep it's old phone number. What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I missing something here??? Just a thought. From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403-606-3853 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #254 ******************************