jackson.TTI.COM%sdcsvax@ttidca.UUCP (Dick Jackson) (04/12/88)
Thanks to Patrick Townson for his posting about the Illinois Bell ISDN tariff filing. >Questions for readers: Do you think their pricing is fair? Do you think >there is (will be soon) a market for ISDN service? If ISDN was available >in your community, would [you] subscribe? Why or why not? I am unsure what I get for 1.3 times the cost of a current line. If my station equipment lets me use two phones independently, one on each B channel, then I am clearly ahead. If instead I can only use one "phone" for two "appearances", or for voice and simultaneous data (for example), then *I* am not impressed I see no compelling reason to choose ISDN other than voice economics, unless someone has a real need for 64kbps data. I don't believe such a need is common currently. I think it will be very interesting to see if ISDN finds customers (in the future) because of the new services it offers/will offer. Dick Jackson Path: ..!{trwrb|philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!ttidcc!jackson jackson@ttidcc.TTI.COM
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (04/17/88)
in article <2283@ttidca.TTI.COM>, jackson.TTI.COM%sdcsvax@ttidca.UUCP (Dick Jackson) says: > Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu >>Questions for readers: Do you think their pricing is fair? Do you think >>there is (will be soon) a market for ISDN service? If ISDN was available >>in your community, would [you] subscribe? Why or why not? > I see no compelling reason to choose ISDN other than voice economics, unless > someone has a real need for 64kbps data. I don't believe such a need is > common currently. I think it will be very interesting to see if ISDN finds > customers (in the future) because of the new services it offers/will offer. There is a real problem with the entire ISDN standard.... (no offense...) it was designed with a mainframe-to-mainframe mentality. [Can you say re-gen your SNA network...??] You only get 1 (!) packet courtesy of the ISDN provider in which to tell the "other end" what kind of a beast you are. Basicly, if you were to invent a totally new device, or make a major improvement on an old one you, and the other endpoint, are stuck with sync(ing) up on the open channel. In a few years, you could be looking at 30+ seconds to make _any_ kind of connection anywhere. There is a simple fix for all of this, and inclusively covers _ANY_ kind of amendments ot the standard! This fix can be implemented as a _software only_ (firmware?) change to any currently planned ISDN device [including something like a 5ESS C.O. Switch.] and covers such things as future enhancements to the actual communications rates [etc.] By implementing this fix, the thickness of the standard should be substantially reduced. I have already thought up 14 [or so] marketable devices for ues in the home, each would make a certain cross-section of the home markets saleable, and hardware manufactures could make _cheap_ devices to do a few things everybody would like. This fix can be sold to anybody. The problem is, I can't seem to get to the correct person, to tell them. I have talked to AT&T personnel who were directly working on ISDN in one form or another. I have talked to hardware manufactures, and telcom professionals at TCA <in San Diego>. I've talked till I'm totally ill on the subject! On the avrage, it takes about an hour [face to face, with diagrams] to "convert" someone who really knows what's going on. I've done it about 20 times, but the conversations always end with "Your right!... but I'm not the one you should be talking to..." "Ok, who do I talk to?" "I don't know... If I can find someone, Ill have them call you." Followed by an exchange of buisness cards, and invariably a, I'm sorry I couldn't help follow-up call <they call me<. The idea is VERY simple, and as such, would take too long to explain here if nobody want's to hear about it. If anybody cares, or would like to discuss the idea here on the open net, send me a little mail. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< << All the STREAM is but a page,<<|>> Robert C. White Jr. << << and we are merely layers, <<|>> nusdhub!rwhite nusdhub!usenet << << port owners and port payers, <<|>>>>>>>>"The Avitar of Chaos"<<<<<<<<<<<< << each an others audit fence, <<|>> Network tech, Gamer, Anti-christ, << << approaching the sum reel. <<|>> Voter, and General bad influence. << <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ## Disclaimer: You thought I was serious???...... Really???? ## ## Interogative: So... what _is_ your point? ;-) ## ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sac@well.UUCP (Steve Cisler) (04/23/88)
>The idea is VERY simple, and as such, would take too long to explain here
if nobody want's to hear about it. If anybody cares, or would like to
discuss the idea here on the open net, send me a little mail.
I'd like to hear more about it, as I was involved from a consumer
standpoint during the Pacific Bell Project Victoria test in 1986.
(It was a precursor of ISDN.)