murthy@alsvid.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) (11/29/89)
earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes: >In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >>... >>I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above >>consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they >>usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an >>estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, >>the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. >>... >Why do we have to pay more bucks to operate our modems over the phone >lines than a voice user? If companies charged $$ based on how much of >a service you used, the Post Office should charge MORE for bulk mail >rather than less :-) Read the article more carefully. And think. The Post Office charges less for bulk mail because it's not much more costly to do the routing of a large package than it is for a small package. The major cost is the human one - handling. So it makes sense to charge less per lb. for bulk than for letters. For phone calls, though, the cost of setup and teardown is small, and is easily dwarfed by the cost of maintaining the connection and data transfer. So it makes sense to charge more for time spent. You might say that in that case, they should charge per-call. But voice calls, as pointed out, are shorter than modem calls, hence the modem calls incur more load on the network. All in all, it makes sense. The system _does_ get more load from modems, so why not charge them more? However, the _reason_ the system gets more load from modems is because it's designed for voice. I should think that a well-designed ISDN system wouldn't have these problems. So perhaps what we should all be pushing for is a kind of ISDN for homeowners? --chet-- murthy@cs.cornell.edu
earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) (11/29/89)
In article <34661@cornell.UUCP> murthy@alsvid.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) writes: >... >Read the article more carefully. And think. The Post Office charges less >for bulk mail because it's not much more costly to do the routing of >a large package than it is for a small package. The major cost is the >human one - handling. So it makes sense to charge less per lb. for bulk >than for letters. >... Hummm... I think you missed the ':-)' somehow....
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/30/89)
In article <34661@cornell.UUCP> murthy@alsvid.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) writes: >earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes: > >>In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >>>... >>>I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above >>>consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they >>>usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an >>>estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, >>>the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. >>>... .... >For phone calls, though, the cost of setup and teardown is small, and is >easily dwarfed by the cost of maintaining the connection and data transfer. Does it? Not really. If so, then the "first minute" charge would be less than the recurring minute charge. It isn't. To set up a call you need use of a module in the switch to parse and interpret the digits you (or your modem) dial, as well as the resources of the switch to actually process the call. Once the line is open, all you are using is physical plant; the switch has done it's job, and you are connected. Tearing down the call again involves the switch's electronics. >So it makes sense to charge more for time spent. You might say that in >that case, they should charge per-call. But voice calls, as pointed >out, are shorter than modem calls, hence the modem calls incur more >load on the network. Not if you have a teenager in the house! I know people who do, and they regularly get phone bills that dwarf mine -- yet I have (and use) a modem in a measured service area, and they DO NOT have a modem. They do have a teen who is on the phone from 3:30 in the afternoon until 10:00 pm at night, stopping only for dinner! Modems are not normally used THAT extensively. When the FCC also surcharges anyone who has a 12-18 year old in the house, then I will accept a modem surcharge without complaint. Not until. >All in all, it makes sense. The system _does_ get more load from modems, >so why not charge them more? However, the _reason_ the system gets more >load from modems is because it's designed for voice. Actually this is not strictly true. Modems put their energy in a narrow band of frequencies (Telebits excepted). Voice is all over the 300-3khz band that phones work with, and is thus actually uses more bandwidth. This is a moot point with the current multiplexing schemes in use, as they digitize the entire spectrum -- thus there is >no< technical difference in bandwidth use between the two. What in the dickens is this doing in comp.unix.wizards anyway? -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (12/05/89)
larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) writes: >although I agree with you that the phone company costs are >escalating because of modems, I also see that the phone company >revenues are escalating because of modems. Much of modem use is un-metered. That is, because the use is residential, the local phone company, in fact, gets no extra revenue. Remember that the long distance charges are now all going to the long distance carrier. David Dick Software Innovations, the Software Moving Company (sm) drd@siia.mv.com