karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/03/89)
(This is being xposted to news.admin due to the number of sites that move Usenet news via PC Persuit at the present time). In article <437@marob.MASA.COM> cabreu@marob.masa.com (Carlos Cabreu) writes: >In article <8901012214.AA25093@amon-re.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) >writes: > >>Sorry, I don't buy that reasoning. The contract we all got with our >>PC Pursuit accounts was clear that it was an unlimited service. The >>advertising I saw used the fact that it was an unlimited service as a >>selling point. > >Well, years ago when TELENET introduced its PC-Pursuit product they were >looking to make money during the off-peak hours when their network was almost >completely idle. I don't believe that they ever expected it to turn into >the behemoth-brute-thing it is now. They are still making money off their PC Persuit service I'd bet -- but now they want to make more money -- a whole lot more. If thousands of people do the analysis I've done, though, they may lose all their subscribers instead and be back to where they were before PC Persuit at night (fixed leased lines cost $, regardless of use!) :-) >>I don't think it is fair to blame USENET and other "heavy" users for >>TELENET's change in policy. We (yes, I admit to being a heavy PC >>Pursuit user) were working within PC Pursuit's rules. Perhaps they >>should have done a little better research, or had written in a ceiling >>in the original contract? > >It's more than a change in "policy." It's a change in pricing structure. >It's foolish to think that their apparent "altruism" would last forever. >Telenet has saved me untold sums over the years and I'm grateful for that. >Even their new pricing is substantially better than Ma Bell's. Not if you have more than a 1200 baud modem it isn't. Tell you what -- let's look: $30.00 - First 30 hours, plus LOCAL CHARGES. 4.50 - Per hour after 30, up to 60. ???? - No idea what it is after 60 hours. Note the important LOCAL CHARGES point. Here it costs me $3.00/hour or so to call the Telenet node (since Telenet two years and change ago moved ALL their indial ports to downtown Chicago from suburban locations! I used to have a Telenet indial port 5 miles from here; no longer. Now it's a timed call.) So, what we have here (and only for the first 30 hours) is: 3.00 + 1.00 - $4.00/hour on PC Persuit, 7.75 - $7.75 an hour on AT&T direct-dial (+/- $1/hour) Note that the AT&T long distance (or anyone else's) includes that nasty nickle-a-minute charge that the local operating company gets us for, while Telenet's service doesn't (they don't collect it either, but I still pay it!) The PC Persuit service looks like a little better deal.... until you figure these numbers into the picture: Average Transfer rate PCP Direct Dial (in cps) ~90cps ~1100cps Telebit modem, PEP mode ~90cps ~220cps 2400-baud garden-variety modem This ~90cps REAL throughput is what we get on uucp, regardless of whether it's a 1200 or 2400 baud originating (and answering) call. The bottleneck is due to the round-trip ACK delays -- even with windows=7 you hit the wall at 2400 baud. Xmodem or Kermit get even worse throughput (less than half UUCP!) The _only_ protocol which gets reasonable throughput is Zmodem, and only if the connection is clean (errors force retransmission of more material, again due to the delays). Now, which method do you think I will use to move my news and mail traffic if I'm paying for it out of my own pocket? Which way would you think I would counsel people to use for their own private BBSing (remember, people download too -- which is a file transfer where throughput is VERY important)? For anyone doing more than 30 hours now on PC Persuit, it makes even less sense to continue to use it. I'll grant you that for a 1200 baud modem owner, or (heaven forbid) 300 baud, PC Persuit looks good. But 2400-baud modems are commonplace these days -- they can be had for under $200. >I've always had the feeling that PC-Pursuit customers were treated like >second-rate citizens (for $25.00 a month -- you get what you pay for.) >The thing to look forward to is improved service from Telenet. They'd >be unwise not to re-invest money after the price hike to improve service. We have always been treated like second-rate citizens. When I have had problems with their gear dropping the line (in the middle of a call, unprovoked!) they simply said "oh well, we'll look into it". Even an offer of active assistance (ie: you tell me when, I'll initiate a call and you watch for what goes wrong) was refused. Then there were the security problems -- people could attach to your indial port (and spoof you while typing your password!). They finally fixed that (or claimed they did; I never knew how the crackers were doing it so I couldn't verify that.) Remember the horrid problems with billed usage (like calls when there was no physical means for them to have been made) when they finally got their billing computer working? (Working? Well, almost.) Telenet also took advantage of the PC Persuit subscriber base in their quest to block the recent FCC action -- regardless of how you slice it, without PC Persuit there would NOT have been that massive letter campaign to the FCC offices and Congresspersons! If the letter campaign had not succeeded, PC Persuit >AND< Telenet's bread-and-butter daytime service would have been more expensive to use than direct dial -- even during the daytime hours! I think it's fair to say that Telenet did manipulate their PC Persuit subscriber base -- most of who (hopefully) will now realize that (1) they've been taken advantage of, and (2) that AT&T or MCI is cheaper to use than PC Persuit on a $-per-byte-moved basis. I won't argue with the fact that some people are (and were) using PC Persuit in rather "odd" ways. I wouldn't consider Usenet and Fido feeds to be "odd", as Telenet has officially said "that's fine". The DDialers who leave connections open all weekend may be another matter; I've seen this too. But DDials are ALL 300 baud -- how much congestion on PC Persuit is on the 300 baud outdials? (Answer: NONE. It's all at 1200 and 2400 baud). PC Persuit is a second-class service, yes. I didn't mind it when we were considered second-class but had second-class costs. Now that they're more expensive per byte moved than any other calling method I'm gonna drop 'em, and I suggest that ALL their subscribers do the same. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
cabreu@marob.MASA.COM (Carlos Cabreu) (01/04/89)
In article <2625@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >They are still making money off their PC Persuit service I'd bet -- but now >they want to make more money -- a whole lot more. That's the American way. Any of us in their shoes would do the same thing. >If thousands of people do the analysis I've done, though, they may lose >all their subscribers instead and be back to where they were before PC >Persuit at night (fixed leased lines cost $, regardless of use!) :-) You're speaking Net-traffic here. The bulk of their subscribers are individuals. To the individual it's a great deal. >Not if you have more than a 1200 baud modem it isn't. Tell you what -- >let's look .... (figures and rationalization here). If you're convinced that PC-Pursuit is no longer right for you (and it isn't the same for each and every one of us), the I suggest that you don't use it any more. The average individual doesn't have a 'Blazer. The average individual WILL use ZModem (even a version for CP/M was just released) or or another windowed protocol (Windowed XModem, or Windowed/Super Kermit, etc.) to get better throughput. The slow transfer rates experienced on PC-Pursuit are indiginous to packet-switching nets, you simply have to use a higher octane gasoline to get the most out of the car. >We have always been treated like second-rate citizens. When I have had >problems with their gear dropping the line (in the middle of a call, >unprovoked!) they simply said "oh well, we'll look into it". Even an offer >of active assistance (ie: you tell me when, I'll initiate a call and you >watch for what goes wrong) was refused. Again, you don't HAVE to use it. >Remember the horrid problems with billed usage (like calls when there was no >physical means for them to have been made) when they finally got their billing >computer working? (Working? Well, almost.) I've had the service almost since its introduction and have never had a problem with billing. (However, I've had numerous errors on both my MCI and Bell billing. Ugh.) >Telenet also took advantage of the PC Persuit subscriber base in their quest >to block the recent FCC action -- regardless of how you slice it, without >PC Persuit there would NOT have been that massive letter campaign to the >FCC offices and Congresspersons! Did you write a letter? Were you protecting YOUR interests, or Telenet's? -- Carlos Manuel Abreu MASE CSE CDP CCP /---------/ Cyberphilia/NYC (212) 431-0434 /----------------------------------------/428 Broome Street, New York, NY 10013
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (01/06/89)
In article <2625@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: | Telenet also took advantage of the PC Persuit subscriber base in their quest | to block the recent FCC action -- regardless of how you slice it, without | PC Persuit there would NOT have been that massive letter campaign to the | FCC offices and Congresspersons! | Incorrect. I sent telegrams after being made aware of the threat through Compuserve, Delphi, and Genie. PC Pursuit was probably exceeding Telenet's capacity to provide the service. Since PC Pursuit doesn't actually pay for itself, Telenet had to do something to discourage usage that *they* considered excess. They aren't going to go out and buy more capacity for a service which doesn't pay for itself. jim-- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" Happy New Year
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/06/89)
In article <442@marob.MASA.COM> cabreu@marob.masa.com (Carlos Cabreu) writes: >In article <2625@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>They are still making money off their PC Persuit service I'd bet -- but now >>they want to make more money -- a whole lot more. > >That's the American way. Any of us in their shoes would do the same thing. Yep. And if they hadn't promoted PC Persuit as a "unlimited use" service _for small businesses_ right up until the announcement of fee upgrade, and had delivered what they did promise when they promised it (2400 baud access, for one) I wouldn't complain at all (but I'd still cancel my subscription as economically indefensible). >>If thousands of people do the analysis I've done, though, they may lose >>all their subscribers instead and be back to where they were before PC >>Persuit at night (fixed leased lines cost $, regardless of use!) :-) > >You're speaking Net-traffic here. The bulk of their subscribers are >individuals. To the individual it's a great deal. Not really. If you use less than 4-5 hours you should buy it long-distance -- it's cheaper. If you use more than 30 you're again cheaper on the long-distance lines before long. Only if you fit between 5 <> 30 hours a month, every month, and DON'T PAY LOCAL ACCESS FEES is PC Persuit a good deal. For everyone else it's a very poor buy at the "updated" rates. This "everyone else", by the way, means the entire Chicago area (with a few lucky exceptions right downtown on the lake) and I suspect most other major metro areas (where Telenet makes money on this service) as well. The entire argument also goes out the window if you stay connected for hours trying to get through to the target city. We attack-dial (smart dialer scripts) and it still fails to some areas after more than 30 minutes of trying. Under the new system we will be metered for that half hour, and it will count towards the "30 hours" allotted. I can easily see spending half of your 30 hours on busy signals and "BUSY"s from the network (no outdial ports). No other network I pay to use has ever tried to charge me for a "busy". >>Not if you have more than a 1200 baud modem it isn't. Tell you what -- >>let's look .... (figures and rationalization here). (entire argument is pointless if you pay local access charges or with congested outdial ports, see above) >>Telenet also took advantage of the PC Persuit subscriber base in their quest >>to block the recent FCC action -- regardless of how you slice it, without >>PC Persuit there would NOT have been that massive letter campaign to the >>FCC offices and Congresspersons! > >Did you write a letter? Were you protecting YOUR interests, or Telenet's? I wrote a letter. As for who's interests I was protecting, mine, of course. Or so I thought. What actually occurred is that I (and several thousand others) were misled by Telenet on this issue. The impact that was predicted for this "electronic cottage" may hit after all..... but Telenet will receive the revenue under this alternate plan instead of the BOC's..... IF people stay connected. I suspect that for the Usenet people, Telebit (Not Telenet!) will end up a major beneficiary due to increased modem sales. :-) The real losers will be the heavy individual users (who can't afford the up-front cost of a Telebit) and the less-well funded individual networks -- Fidonet being one. How convenient a twist from what would have otherwise been a business disaster for Telenet, and what a wonderful example of manipulating the populace (mainly the Fido people) to their own detriment. Note that we're dropping the Telenet service, but the change is very close to cost-neutral for us (we'll just talk LD at 19200 only, 'tis all). For some others it won't be that simple. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (01/08/89)
I happen to be one of those individual users; not particularly heavy,
but heavy enough not to be able to afford the price increase.
Therefore, I have been considering turning my Amiga into a UUCP node,
and getting a feed from somewhere. Unfortunately, I live in the middle of
IBM-land (New York's mid-Hudson Valley), and although there are several
universities a local call away, all of them are on BITNET. All the UUCP
sites I could find in the maps are a long distance call away.
So, I ask: What's the least expensive way of getting a very limited
feed (like comp.sys.amiga[.tech], comp.binaries.amiga, and comp.lang.misc)?
What are UUNET's rates like? Where should I look?
If this is not the proper newsgroup in which to ask this question, what
is?
Dan Hankins