Re: 'Phone Barons seek to control CU (what's new?)

Joe (jwf2@slip.net)
Fri, 05 Apr 1996 08:22:44 -0800


Jonathan Day wrote:
>
> Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > I had a chat with my telecommunications guy about this subject, and he
> > filled me in a bit, I'll pass along what he told me filtered through my own
> > inexperience, incompetence and ignorance: The phone companies are, indeed,
> > carrying all the internet traffic on their lines now, but at rates that are
> > set based on a common standard. But here's where it gets messy. The
> > standard data rate for a voice conversation is 64Kb, but -- for example --
> > Internet Phone can get by with 7K (I think that's right), and somebody with
> > half a brain can squeeze nine internet phone conversations into the space
> > of one traditional voice circuit. My contact says that's why the 'phone
> > companies are yelling, mostly because they can't do that too.
>
> Oh, but they /can/! If they could be bothered, that is. When you make
> a phone call, the /entire/ line is reserved for that call, even though
> it's probably being used for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the time
> that the call is being made. Secondly, raw connections contain vast
> amounts of redundant data. The phone companies try to remove it by
> limiting the range of frequencies, which is why phone conversations
> sound so awful. Thirdly, the modern exchanges are digital, not
> analogue, making a lot of the older practices which were genuinely
> needed on the older analogue technology wasteful and plain stupid.
>
> > He sez that he believes the logical outcome of this problem will be a
> > system of charging for line use by the bit, rather than by the 64K channel.
>
> Charging flat-rates is the current trend, which is a sensible approach,
> IMHO. The phone companies would be better off trying to work out ways
> of using their networks more efficiently. For a start, they could try
> to have more than one signal being sent down one wire. It really isn't
> that difficult. Necessary regulation is one thing, but I see no reason
> for us to pay for /their/ lack of imagination.
>
> Jonathan

We'll to each his own.....my feelings are that as long as were not paying a "dime" for
something that they can provide, well just put 2 & 2 together.

They have had a monopoly since the inception of the technology (telephone), now they
stand to not really to lose much revenue, but it just irks them that there will be no
more future revenue gained.

When this bill fails to pass, Im sure the Telco giants will come up with a "surcharge"
or something in regards to using a modem on a home phone line. Its inevitable, they
always have to have a piece of the action........

-- 
  Imported.       _________                     Imported.
  22-Jul-95       ______  /______ _____         22-Jul-95
                  ___ _  / _  __ \_  _ \       
                  / /_/ /  / /_/ //  __/       
                  \____/   \____/ \___/