[comp.dcom.modems] Cost of 9.6/19.2 kbps leased line from Bay Area to Midwest

aaron@AHKCUS.ORG (Aaron Y.T. Cheung) (04/15/91)

Would appreciate information (cost expectations & contacts info if any)
of running a 9600/19200 bps digital (or analog) leased line (satellite
or terrestrial) between East Cost and Midwest.  In particular, looking
for between the Bay Area and Minnesota/Illinois.

Any info appreciated; similar references wanted also.
Thanks, /aaron. (aaron@ahkcus.org)

larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/16/91)

aaron@AHKCUS.ORG (Aaron Y.T. Cheung) writes:

>Would appreciate information (cost expectations & contacts info if any)
>of running a 9600/19200 bps digital (or analog) leased line (satellite
>or terrestrial) between East Cost and Midwest.  In particular, looking
>for between the Bay Area and Minnesota/Illinois.

Well, from South Bend, IN to Indianapolis, IN (a distance of 180 miles)
the monthly charges are around $780 - and installation is right
at $2000 (for a 9600 baud conditioned leased 2/4 wire line).

We use the line to run SLIP (TCP/IP) using v.32bis modems and
get excellent throughput (around 3.5kb/sec ASCII/1.6kb/sec binary).

Currently we are running stock SLIP from Interactive Systems
and have plans to upgrade to PPP slip which should increase
the throughput..

-- 
   Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis)
                        regional UUCP mapping coordinator 
               {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}

brian@telebit.com (Brian Lloyd) (04/16/91)

In article <1991Apr15.191317.8465@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>Currently we are running stock SLIP from Interactive Systems
>and have plans to upgrade to PPP slip which should increase
>the throughput..

Actually PPP as a protocol will not net you any improvement in
performance over SLIP.  In fact, switching from SLIP to PPP will
reduce your throughput slightly because PPP has more overhead (3 to 6
octets per frame depending upon which LCP compression option you have
negotiated).  If you are running IP only and you are running over a
leased line and you are using an async interface to your modem, there
is no advantage to switching to PPP.

PPP is a win when you are running on a sync link because almost all of
the router manufacturers now support PPP as a link protocol.  PPP is
also a win if you are running on a dial-up link because of the
authentication and IP address negotiation/assignment features.

If you are looking for performance consider running Van Jacobson's
IP/TCP header prediction/compression known as CSLIP.  Some
implementations of PPP also support VJ compression.




-- 
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN                              Telebit Corporation
Network Systems Architect                        1315 Chesapeake Terrace 
brian@napa.telebit.com                           Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1100
voice (408) 745-3103                             FAX (408) 734-3333