Re: Ma Bell

[dalloff@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Dave Althoff)]

Sam Ismail (dastar@crl.com) wrote:
: Sheldon Simms (sheldon@atlcom.net) wrote:
: : In article <5elcij$nud$1@news.calweb.com>, markhass@calweb.com wrote:


: : In any case, the proposal is not for the RBOCs (local phone companies)
: : to charge you or I by the minute. The proposal is to reclassify ISPs
: : so that *they* can be charged by the minute for incoming calls. Granted
: : that would most likely result in  per-minute charges on ISP users, levied
: : by the ISPs themselves.

: The ISPs would most definitely pass on the charge, which goes to show that
: government regulation increases costs, rather than controlling it.

: : Face it. Flat rate phone service is not a right. It is thought to be
: : a good thing by the FCC, but it is not a right. I don't want to pay
: : by the minute for phone calls but I also don't want to live in a
: : country where the government owns the phone company.

: If it were more than a year ago I'd probably say something about local
: monopoly and make some point, but now that there is "competition" (not
: quire yet but it will arrive someday) people will simply choose the
: phone service that best services their internet needs.  I envision that
: you will have two phone lines in your house, 1 for regular phone use in
: which you probably stick to a typical local exchange company for your
: voice phone service and then your 2nd line would be subscribed to a phone
: service that charges you cheap rates based on modem type usage.  I'm
: sure some enterprising company will come up with such a service that
: will keep internet access cheap.
: -- 

Considering that most (not us Apple ]['ers, but most of the internet
surfers that the RBOCs are complaining about) of the Internet surfers are
using their modems to dial into a SLIP or PPP connection to turn their
computers into network nodes on the ISP's network, then the dialup modem
is a terrible hack.  I mean, the ISP needs to have a seperate dialup modem
and a seperate incoming telephone line for every connected subscriber. 
Each of those lines is connected to an incoming rotary, but every line has
its own unique telephone number, which serves to further increase the
problem of area codes running out of numbers.  But if I understand the way
that computer networks function, and how TCP/IP connections work, then
what is really needed here is a technological solution such that end users
can dial up a single number for their ISP, and the RBOC (or other local
phone company) can recognize that call as a data call.  Instead of routing
the call into a multiline rotary, that call can be hubbed into all of the
other calls routed to the ISP.  Then the ISP has only a limited number of
incoming lines to handle lots and lots of data calls.  Furthermore, if the
line is classified as a data channel, different processing can be used on
the line to allow for higher data rates...since the processing used on
telephones is designed to optimize voice transmission, not data.

Of course, instead of developing a standard protocol for optimizing casual
data transmission, the RBOCs have instead been busy developing useless
features for voice phone lines.  If the RBOCs don't get their act
together, the ISPs and the CATV companies will shortly put them out of the
household data transmission business entirely, particularly if they
succeed in instituting measured rates for ISPs.

Just my prediction...

--Dave Althoff, ][.
-- 
    /-\        _       _           ***  New season begins May 9!  ***
   /XXX\      /X\     /X\_      _     /XX\_      _     _        _____  
  /XXXXX\    /XXX\  _/XXXX\_   /X\   /XXXXX\    /X\   /X\      /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX