W8SDZ@simtel20.arpa (Keith Petersen) (12/12/86)
The FCC is considering a ruling which may threaten low-cost modem
access to many on-line services, perhaps including Arpa/Milnet TACs
and Usenet Unix systems. Here are the details from a copy of a file
just uploaded to my Remote CP/M system.
--Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie Mail: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 (300, 1200, 2400 bps)
--cut here--BADNEWS.PCP--cut here--
The FCC is considering reregulating the packet-switching networks like Telenet,
Tymnet, Compuserve, The Source and PC Pursuit. This could result in additional
costs to the user. This is excerpted from Infomat magazine which is available
for downloading.
====================================
COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE NEWS -- PART 1
====================================
by Tim Elmer
------------------------------------
FREE LOCAL ACCESS TO PACKET
SWITCHING NETWORKS MAY BE ELIMINATED
------------------------------------
(BPS) -- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote on a proposal
to reregulate packet switching networks that, if approved, would eliminate
free local telephone access to those networks.
"If this occurs, it might eventually double or triple the costs to those
using packet switching networks to access commercial on-line databases and
information services and triple or quadruple the costs to those using
Telenet's PC Pursuit," said Philip M. Walker, vice president and regulatory
counsel for Telenet Communications Corp.
Predictably, the initiative to reregulate packet switching networks comes
primarily from the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) and secondarily from AT&T.
These companies provide local telephone service to vast majority of telephone
customers throughout the U.S. and will benefit the most from FCC reregulation
of the packet switching networks.
Under current FCC rules formulated in 1980 in the FCC's Second Computer
Inquiry, called Computer II, a distinction is made between "basic services"
and "enhanced services."
"Basic services" are those that don't offer protocol conversion such as local
and long-distance voice telephone services. "Enhanced services" are defined
in an open-ended fashion as computer-based services that are more than a
"basic service," in other words, services such as packet switching networks,
database and on-line type services, and remote computing services that offer
protocol conversion, according to Walker.
Under the 1980 Computer II Inquiry, the FCC ruled that "basic services" would
continue to be regulated as they had always been. However, the FCC also ruled
that "enhanced services" would be deregulated, which opened up the industry to
competition. This resulted in numerous companies entering the packet
switching business, including BOCs, AT&T and at least a dozen others. The
competition resulted in significant price reductions for packet switching
services.
To prevent monopolization of the packet switching industry by the Big Boys
(the BOCs and AT&T), the FCC ruled that they had to keep separate accounting
figures for their "basic services" and for their "enhanced services," and that
they could not use revenues from their lucrative "basic services" to cross-
subsidize their "enhanced service" packet switching networks.
The FCC also ruled that if the BOCs and AT&T used their "basic service"
telephone lines for packet switching services, then they must let their
competitors have access to those lines on the same basis, which would preserve
true competition in the industry.
"Now, under the FCC's Computer Inquiry III, the FCC is asking, should we
redefine protocol conversion services as 'basic services' rather than enhanced
services? Should we redefine all those companies as common carriers? This
would, in effect, subject them not only to federal regulations but, even
worse, to state regulations," Walker said.
The result would eliminate comparable interconnection requirements currently
imposed on BOCs and AT&T, allowing them to charge their packet switching
competitors local dial-in fees to access packet switching long-distance line
networks.
It would also allow BOCs and AT&T to offer their own packet switching
services on a non-compensatory basis and, finally, allow them to cross-
subsidize those services with revenues from their much more lucrative voice
telephone service revenues. In short, it would allow BOCs and AT&T to
monopolize the packet switching industry and probably drive out most
competitors.
"In terms of cost impact," Walker said, "if we had to pay local access
charges, it would cost us about $3.60 an hour at the originating end, for
calls made by users to on-line databases and information services like
CompuServe and The Source.
"And with PC Pursuit, for which we have out-dial modems, we would have to pay
not only 3.60 per hour access fees at the originating end but also $4.80 at
the terminating end, a total of about $8 or $9. Obviously, to survive, we
would have to add those additional charges to our current fees and pass them
on to our consumers," Walker said.
That would almost certainly spell the end of PC Pursuit, and it would likely
put out of business not only many independent packet switching networks but
also many on-line databases and information services.
FCC approval of changes being considered in Computer III, Walker said, "would
really have a major impact on anyone using a packet switching service to
access online bulletin boards, databases, or information services aimed at the
residential user. They are just going to get creamed if this happens."
Walker said that is was not clear exactly when the FCC would vote on the
proposal, but that it would probably be the latter part of January or early
part of February, 1987. "They are moving very fast on this," he said.
For additional information, be sure to read Alan Bechtold's editorial in this
issue.
==========END>>>
Copyright (C) 1986, by BBS PRESS SERVICE, INC.
=================
THE EDITOR SPEAKS
=================
"Low-Cost packet switching Service Threatened"
by Alan R. Bechtold
As described in our lead news story this issue, the FCC is now considering a
major change in the way packet switched phone services are defined. This
change is likely to lead to the demise of many of these services, and to much
higher prices for the use of the few that will eventually remain in business.
At the risk of over-simplification, I think I should first describe just what
a packet switched networking service is. These are the services you use to
access online databases and commercial online services, such as CompuServe and
The Source, with just a local telephone call. Once you call the local Telenet
or Tymnet number, for example, and a connection is made, you are then
connected with a computer that puts you in communication with the online
services with which you wish to communicate.
This computer is handling a number of calls into the main system computer at
the same time. It takes information you send and delivers it in "packets" to
the proper destination, picks up information from the online service computer
you called, and sends it, also in "packets," back to you. All of this
communicating is done in these so-called "packets" because this allows the
network's computers to offer protocol conversion and handle several ongoing
communications sessions at the same time.
FCC regulations allow AT&T and Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to engage in
packet switching network operations, but they must also maintain completely
separate accounting of their voice and packet switching operations. They must
also offer free local-calling access to their lines to any competitors engaged
in the packet switching service industry.
The above regulations have allowed Telenet and Tymnet, among others, to
operate at a reasonable cost in a competitive atmosphere. This is a case of
regulation of a business actually RESULTING in increased competition and lower
prices to consumers.
As things stand now, you can call any local Telenet or Tymnet access number
and use these services to inexpensively access such online services as
CompuServe, The Source, Delphi, and countless others. In addition, GTE's new
PC PURSUIT service now offers you access, through their Telenet packet
switching service, to literally hundreds of local bulletin boards in cities
all across the country--for a flat charge of $25 per month.
But, the FCC is now being asked to REREGULATE this segment of the
communications industry, eliminating the FCC requirements that AT&T and BOCs
keep separate accounting records of their voice and packet switching services,
and eliminating the stipulation that the BOCs and AT&T must offer their
competitors in the packet switching business free access to their local
telephone connection lines.
The idea is patently ridiculous.
Mark Fowler, Chairman of the FCC, has been hailed by the press as a "fair-
market zealot." The chances are very good that he views this proposed
reregulation as the magic road to increased competition and fairer pricing for
consumers.
Unofficially, the word is out that the FCC advisory committee now considering
this matter is indeed leaning in favor of the proposed reregulation of the
packet switching industry. If the committee recommends these changes, it's
likely that a majority of the five voting members on the Federal
Communications Commission will vote in favor of the changes.
I have talked to sources within the industry who say it is the BOCs who are
pushing VERY HARD for this reregulation, because they want to get into the
packet switching service business in a big way, and they would like to rid
themselves of needless competition on their way to success.
What's that? RID themselves of competition? But--the proposed reregulation
is supposed to FOSTER competition! Why would a group of companies (BOCs)
hoping to eliminate their competition PUSH for this reregulation? I hope the
answer to THAT question is entirely clear.
Here we have an industry that is currently populated with plenty of
competition. Prices are already reasonable. Reregulation of the packet
switching service industry will IMMEDIATELY give giant corporations the upper
hand, and will allow them to cut off free access to their local access phone
lines to their competitors, namely Telenet and Tymnet and other similar
services that now offer you high-quality service, in a competitive
marketplace, at reasonable prices.
The proposed reregulation, however, would force all packet switching services
to compete with the BOCs and AT&T, companies that would be able to use the
enormous profits they earn with their voice telephone services to cross-
subsidize their packet switching services and offer them on a non-compensatory
basis, at least until their competitors are eliminated. When that happens,
they are then sure to jack up their fees to any level they want.
It would also force their packet switching competitors to pay access fees for
connection to local phone lines. The access fees alone could add as much as
$4.00 per hour to the fees packet switching companies would be forced to pass
on to their customers. This will be added to your hourly connect-time charges
for accessing ALL online databases through these services.
The proposed reregulation could very well spell the death of PC PURSUIT.
Because GTE also uses dial-out modems at the other end of their Telenet
connections for PC PURSUIT service, the company would be forced to pay an
hourly charge at BOTH ends of the phone line--totaling up to $8 or $9 per
hour. These fees would have to be added to the flat $25 per month that GTE
now charges for access to PC-PURSUIT. It would simply make the final cost to
PC-PURSUIT customers too high for the service to remain practical and
affordable.
So--this is ONE TIME you MUST use your word processor to produce some letters
opposing this proposed reregulation! Write to:
Honorable Mark Fowler
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
Washington D.C. 20554
Refer to Computer Inquiry III in your letters. State clearly, in your own
words, that competitive packet switching services should not be reregulated or
subjected to carrier access charges, and then explain why not. Tell Mr.
Fowler that reregulation of packet switching services will completely destroy
the existing fair market for these services, and eventually increase costs,
not DECREASE them.
And hurry! I have heard this matter will be going before the FCC for a vote
in the latter part of January or early part of February. Time is running out.
==========END>>>KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu (Keith F. Lynch) (12/16/86)
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
... Mark Fowler, Chairman of the FCC, has been hailed by the press as
a "fair market zealot." The chances are very good that he views this
proposed reregulation as the magic road to increased competition and
fairer pricing for consumers.
In a free market, it would not matter to users whether this
legislation was passed or not. The legislation does not COMPELL local
phone companies to charge four dollars or more per hour for a local
phone call to a long distance data service (e.g. PC PURSUIT) it merely
ALLOWS them to do so.
Since it doesn't cost local phone companies any more to complete a
local call to such a service than it costs them to complete any other
local call, phone companies would not lose money by not adding this
charge. And since any local phone company which chose NOT to charge
extra for such calls would get plenty of business from users who
formerly used any local phone company which DID decide to add the
extra charge, there would certainly be local phone companies which
choose not to add this charge. This is how the free market works.
HOWEVER, we unfortunately do NOT have a free market in local
telephone service. Since each user has no choice which local phone
company to use, thanks to a pernicious government-mandated monopoly,
most local phone companies probably WILL add this charge if they are
allowed to. They know they won't lose any customers to competing
firms, since there are no competing firms allowed.
In an ideal world, this legislation would be a good thing. Phone
companies like any other company should be allowed to charge whatever
they wish for their services, subject only to the constraints of the
marketplace. But in the context of the captive marketplace, this
legislation would be a very bad thing. If phone companies are given
a monopoly, their prices have to be regulated by the government, since
they are not regulated by the free market. Without regulation, they
would be able to charge as much as they could without people abandoning
phone service for bicycle messengers or carrier pigeons.
Phone service ought to cost the user just a few percent more than
the cost to the phone company of providing the service. In a free
market, it would. In a regulated mandated monopoly, it might (how
could anyone ever tell?). But given an unregulated mandated monopoly,
i.e. the worst of both worlds, the local phone companies will sell
their services for slightly less than the cost to the user of doing
completely without phone service.
If Mark Fowler is indeed an advocate of the free market system, this
is how it should be explained to him.
Write to:
Honorable Mark Fowler
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
Washington D.C. 20554
Refer to Computer Inquiry III in your letters. ...
And hurry! I have heard this matter will be going before the FCC for a
vote in the latter part of January or early part of February. Time is
running out.
I completely agree. Write today!
Please reply to me, I am not on most of these lists.
...KeithOCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) (12/16/86)
Date: 16-DEC-1986 13:30 Sender: OCONNORDM Subject: Re: Re: Pending FCC ruling threat to modem users To: Info-Micro@BRL.ARPA@SMTP, Unix-Sources@BRL.ARPA@SMTP, To: Info-XMODEM@simtel20.arpa@SMTP, Info-Cpm@amsaa.arpa@SMTP -------- People have written lots on this new FCC rule change ( threat? threat?? ). Lots of stirring propaganda about regulators who beleive in fairy tales, monopolies that will screw you to the wall given the chance, and legislated monopolies. Lots of misconceptions. First: MODEM calls DO NOT cost the phone company the same amount as other calls. They tend to be longer, and don't tolerate noise as well. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the phone system knows it can only handle some fraction of the possible calls that might be happening at any one time, and the longer the average phone call is, the more equipment will be needed to meet this fraction. If the phone company always charged for local service BY THE MINUTE, well, no problem, but phone companies usually charge BY THE CALL or BY THE MONTH. So heavy modem users are currently being SUBSIDIZED by the rest of the users. Sounds like it MIGHT be UNFAIR. Second: the goverment does not "mandate" a "pernicous" monopoly, it simply allows it. You or I can go out, get right-of-way on the utility poles like the cable companies, and start our very own telephone system. The problem is you and I would lose big money trying to compete with the phone system. And our users would be annoyed at people next door using BELL being a long-distance call. But you can do it, in fact, General Electric HAS done it, for both its local and long-distance telephone needs ( known as DIALCOM ). If ANYBODY needs something explained to him, it is probably NOT Mark Fowler. Before people rush to pester him, why don't you all invite someone from the Phone Companies to give THEIR SIDE. This rush to get half-informed people to rise up and make trouble is simply electronic rabble-rousing, NOT what democracy thrives on : informed opinion from people who have been exposed to ALL SIDES of an issue. ( DISCLAIMER : I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with anyone, nor do these opinions represent anybody elses. I could even be wrong. But then again, so could you. 'Cause remember ... No matter where you go, There you are. ) Dennis O'Connor -------- --------
johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) (12/17/86)
See followup in comp.dcom.modems.
--
John R. Levine, Javelin Software Corp., Cambridge MA +1 617 494 1400
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.EDU
Where is Richard Nixon now that we need him?stiber@zeus.cs.ucla.edu (Michael D Stiber) (12/18/86)
In article <1572@brl-adm.ARPA> OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: >First: MODEM calls DO NOT cost the phone company the same amount as >other calls. They tend to be longer, and don't tolerate noise as well. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1) You've obviously never had a sister (or daughter). Do families with teenage girls pay more for phone service? Unlimited local calling is just that _unlimited_. 2) Modems use the same lines as voice. The assertion that they tolerate noise less well is irrelevant, since they do not get special priveledges. Michael Stiber Email: stiber@ucla-locus.arpa ...{ucbvax,ihpn4}!ucla-cs!stiber US Mail: Box 246 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90024
aaa@pixar.UUCP (Tony Apodaca) (12/23/86)
In article <3454@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> stiber@zeus (Michael D Stiber) writes: >In article <1572@brl-adm.ARPA> OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: >>First: MODEM calls DO NOT cost the phone company the same amount as >>other calls. They tend to be longer, and don't tolerate noise as well. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >1) You've obviously never had a sister (or daughter). Do families with >teenage girls pay more for phone service? Unlimited local calling >is just that _unlimited_. > >2) Modems use the same lines as voice. The assertion that they tolerate >noise less well is irrelevant, since they do not get special >priveledges. I'm sure that this discussion is going hot and heavy in net.dcom.etc but I'll answer here anyway. Flame off, Mike. The point is true even if the rationale is messed up. Modem calls DO cost the phone company more, for several reasons: 1) They are continuous. The dual carrier never stops. Therefore, the phone company must supply bandwidth to the call continuously even if there is no "valid" data. They cannot time-multiplex their signals. There are small breathing and thinking pauses in all voice conversation, and 99% of voice is half-duplex, even a teenage girl's conversations. 2) They are high bandwidth. The phone line was designed with human voices in mind, and they are pretty low bandwidth, as everyone knows. Also, everyone knows that their modems strive to get the most out of it, so they use it all up (if they didn't you'd buy a new one!). However, the phone company "counts on" the signals being voice-like, so they can cram as many signals into one wire as possible, and a modem transmission screws up their frequency-division multiplexing. 3) The carrier on some modems just happens to overlap a critical region of part of the phone company's equipment's frequency allocation. The circuits known as "echo suppression" use it to monitor themselves, and kick in higher bandwidth and better circuits if there is too much echo on the line. If they didn't have it, you'd bitterly complain about the quality of your long-distance connections. Voice doesn't have much of these freqs, but the carrier flips it out, causing it to allocate too much signal to your call. I don't work for the phone company and I dislike paying more for modem service just like the rest, but as a EE, I have to admit that "facts is facts". Didn't Wash U teach you anything? ;-) What is this doing on net.sources, anyway????
parker@epiwrl.UUCP (Alan Parker) (12/25/86)
In article <403@pixar.UUCP> aaa@pixar.UUCP (Tony Apodaca) writes: >In article <3454@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> stiber@zeus (Michael D Stiber) writes: >>In article <1572@brl-adm.ARPA> OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: >>>First: MODEM calls DO NOT cost the phone company the same amount as >>>other calls. They tend to be longer, and don't tolerate noise as well. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>1) You've obviously never had a sister (or daughter). Do families with >>teenage girls pay more for phone service? Unlimited local calling >>is just that _unlimited_. >> >>2) Modems use the same lines as voice. The assertion that they tolerate >>noise less well is irrelevant, since they do not get special >>priveledges. > >I'm sure that this discussion is going hot and heavy in net.dcom.etc but >I'll answer here anyway. Flame off, Mike. The point is true even if the >rationale is messed up. Modem calls DO cost the phone company more, for >several reasons: > 1) They are continuous. The dual carrier never stops. Therefore, >the phone company must supply bandwidth to the call continuously even if >there is no "valid" data. They cannot time-multiplex their signals. >There are small breathing and thinking pauses in all voice conversation, >and 99% of voice is half-duplex, even a teenage girl's conversations. This is wrong. In almost all cases the phone company supplies continuous bandwidth to calls. Very few, if any, trunks care about silence periods. You get a channel. That channel has a bandpass of 300 to 4000 Hz. They have sharp filters to be sure that you stay in this channel. On analog carrier trunks (frequency-domain mux) you get a piece of the carrier bandwidth (about 4Khz). There is switching going on during silence periods. On digital trunks, the analog channel is coded into a bit stream (usually 64Kbps for PCM, or 32K bps for APCM) and muxed into a higer speed data stream. Again, you get a channel of about 4Khz. They have sharp filters to make sure the input signal is within this bandpass (you have to filter it anyway before going into the ADC). (There are schemes to exploits silence periods, but these are not widely used for regular telephone service.) > 2) They are high bandwidth. The phone line was designed with human >voices in mind, and they are pretty low bandwidth, as everyone knows. Also, >everyone knows that their modems strive to get the most out of it, so they >use it all up (if they didn't you'd buy a new one!). However, the phone >company "counts on" the signals being voice-like, so they can cram as many >signals into one wire as possible, and a modem transmission screws up their >frequency-division multiplexing. Wrong. Doesn't matter how much bandwidth you ask for. You get a channel about 4Khz wide. If you got what you wanted, it would be a lot easier to design a 9600 bps modem (gee, I think I'll just demand a 10Khz channel.) > 3) The carrier on some modems just happens to overlap a critical >region of part of the phone company's equipment's frequency allocation. >The circuits known as "echo suppression" use it to monitor themselves, and >kick in higher bandwidth and better circuits if there is too much echo on the >line. If they didn't have it, you'd bitterly complain about the quality of >your long-distance connections. Voice doesn't have much of these freqs, >but the carrier flips it out, causing it to allocate too much signal to >your call. > You don't understand why or how echo cancellers work. Lines that run any significant distance or 4 wire, that is there is a different path for the signal going each way (as opposed to the 2 wire scheme used for local loops and shorter trunks). If you run a large distance (say, greater than 1000 miles) if there is any mixing of the transmit and receive signal (which will happen when they are converted back to two wire at the other subscriber end) some of your voice comes back. The time delay of the return path causes you to hear it as echo. You always get some echo regardless of the length of the line, its just that you don't notice it unless the time delay significant. In traditional (i.e. older) long distance systems they stuck analog echo suppressors along the way. They had to use this often, since they weren't great; they suppressed echo, but didn't remove it all. These days they have digital echo suppressors that really clean things up well, so you can have them just at each end. These are *designed* to disable themselves on a data call, since the echo doesn't bother the modems and since both ends send continously the echo cancellers would tend to suppress the signals. This doesn't screw up the system. Thats the way it was designed. By design modems send a tone to disable the echo cancellers. The echo canceller certainly doesn't not "switch in" a higher bandwidth or higher quality line. Bandwith has nothing to do with echo (echo the echo would sound better on a wider bandwidth line!).