Mailing List Archive

Hi there folx,

>
>
> >From the 'For What Its Worth' Department.
>
> - paul
>
>
> BELL VS. INTERNET PROVIDERS
> Bell Canada plants to increase line rate charges for Internet service
> providers by as much as 400%, saying the higher charge is necessary because
> those providers use lines for 55 to 60 minutes every hour compared with
> voice usage on a Centrex line of about 10 minutes. The service providers
> say the move aims to eliminate competition for Bell when it introduces its
> Worldlinx Internet access by the end of this year. (Montreal Gazette 9 Nov
> 95 D7)

The same outrages story is going on in Russia ... they're trying
to force ppl. with modems pay 2-5 times more for the telephone
service.
Scumbugs even designed devices to listen periodically to the
random lines in the TelCo COs , trying to get a modem carrier.
And if they find one , they put some kind of filter on that
line which makes impossible to use the modem - till you
pay the dough

I think that it is the point in certain other countries
with state/one company monopoly in communications.

Rashid

> Hi there folx,
>
>>
>>
>> >From the 'For What Its Worth' Department.
>>
>> - paul
>>
>>
>> BELL VS. INTERNET PROVIDERS
>> Bell Canada plants to increase line rate charges for Internet service
>> providers by as much as 400%, saying the higher charge is necessary because
>> those providers use lines for 55 to 60 minutes every hour compared with
>> voice usage on a Centrex line of about 10 minutes. The service providers
>> say the move aims to eliminate competition for Bell when it introduces its
>> Worldlinx Internet access by the end of this year. (Montreal Gazette 9 Nov
>> 95 D7)
>
> The same outrages story is going on in Russia ... they're trying
> to force ppl. with modems pay 2-5 times more for the telephone
> service.
> Scumbugs even designed devices to listen periodically to the
> random lines in the TelCo COs , trying to get a modem carrier.
> And if they find one , they put some kind of filter on that
> line which makes impossible to use the modem - till you
> pay the dough
>
> I think that it is the point in certain other countries
> with state/one company monopoly in communications.
>
> Rashid

Now wait a second, guys, you are right that it is not nice in and of
itself, but it is nevertheless understandable. Different from the
Internet, the phone companies do extensive network analysis, and base
their optimization and capacity functions on the results (needless to
say, their (individual) systems are also a little bit bigger than those
(individual NSP) Internet toys, and analysis and capacity planning may
be a bit more important there). This includes knowing what the profile
of typical phone calls is (frequency, duration, ...). In the US the
local calls are typically free, but with a modem you hog switches
potentially forever. I have used the same voice line with a modem,
clearly traversing phone company switches, for weeks at a time. It does
have an impact on capacity planning. I am not saying the phone
companies are right or wrong, just that we are clearly talking about
different workload profiles, which may not be coverable in their "free
local calls" budget. No, I would still not like it either if they would
charge me more for modem access than for voice.

May be similar to the introduction of multimedia into the Internet.
You guys treat all the same, but sooner or later you will be caught by
that with your pants down. E.g., in a heavy traffic aggregation
environment we see, say, 80,000 simulteneous transactions, perhaps half
of them in number of transactions and volume being web traffic. So, may
be 50% of 80,000 causing 50% of the traffic (numbers not quite
accurate, just to make a point). Now you see, say, 2% of your traffic
caused by CU-SeeMe. No problem, right? But that up'n'coming multimedia
stuff was may be caused by only 16 transactions. Would not you better
worry, just like the phone companies about modems? How long can that be
sustained, if routine packet losses of 10% on the underprovisioned and
uncontrolled infrastructure are already declared as perfectly
acceptable?

HWB...

you are right - modem calls have different holding time patterns.
however, samples of large modem pools don't (yet) show them to be
many hours long. (about 4x a normal phone call if I correctly remember
the last numbers I saw)

but if they are really concerned about holding times, howcum they
price "teen phones" even cheaper than ordinary??? those lines
certainly don't exhibit classic 1MB distributions (and those
don't exhibit them anymore, either).

no, they have simply identified someone whom they think has no
alternative to just bleeding more. Ah, the perks of the monarchy.

-mo

> no, they have simply identified someone whom they think has no
> alternative to just bleeding more. Ah, the perks of the monarchy.

the story i heard was not about usage percentage by time, but rather
usage percentage by bandwidth. modems squeeze every possible transition
out of the 3KHz band, while voice calls have few tones and much silence.
this means a modem call takes more bandwidth out of the inter-CO trunks
and LD aggregates. the telco's don't use strict DS0a TDM internally.

the only reason why usage percentage by time matters to a telco is to
differentiate between the economic impact of G3 FAX vs. V.32bis modems:
they both use all of the link's transitions but FAXes are usually short
lived and so there's nothing to worry about.

i'm not happy about the trend toward detecting modem users and charging
more for them, but it's an inevitable technical/economic necessity and
that means the PUCs around the united states are all going to have to
let it happen. what's amazed me for the last few years is that it's
taken the telcos so long to realize what they need to do and do it.

Original message <199511101720.LAA04353@crash.ops.neosoft.com>
From: Scott Mace <smace@crash.ops.neosoft.com>
Date: Nov 10, 11:20
Subject: Re: Bell vs. Internet Providers (fwd)
>
>
> ISP's should consider using a DS1 or better to deliver dialtone for their
> modem banks. It makes alot of sense for the ISP and the phone company.
> Delivering dialtone over a T1 is certainly more cost effective than paying
> a %400 increase for Centrex lines.
>
> Scott
>-- End of excerpt from Scott Mace

1. I suspect that any rate increases would apply to lines delivered over a DS1
as well.

2. Phone company pricing isn't reasonable. (Yet Another) Proof:
We have a POP in Santa Cruz, CA. PacBell serves that location. We ran
out of pairs to the building, and they refused to add more. We were given
a choice,... either pay for more copper pairs to be installed, or have them
install fiber, break the POTS service out from the fiber onto DS1 and
get it that way. But we'd need to pay for the demux from DS1 to analog,
for our modems, or buy (more expensive) modem racks with integral demux
capability.
They gave us a price of about $25,000 to pull 1200 pair. And since
$20/line is significantly cheaper (10x) than you can buy a mux for, and
significantly less than the difference in price to get the more expensive
modem racks that swallow DS1s directly, we had them pull the copper.

-matthew kaufman
matthew@scruz.net

Unfortunately, illogical tariffs often make this not true for the ISP.

> Delivering dialtone over a T1 is certainly more cost effective than paying
> a %400 increase for Centrex lines.

This is getting fast and furious, but not everything I'm reading is true:

>>> ISP's should consider using a DS1 or better to deliver dialtone for their
>>> modem banks. It makes alot of sense for the ISP and the phone company.

True, but...

>>> Delivering dialtone over a T1 is certainly more cost effective than paying
>>> a %400 increase for Centrex lines.

...this is orthogonal to Centrex. You can deliver Centrex over T1 or copper.
You can deliver 1ML's over T1 or copper. Centrex is a tariff change and an
options change inside the telco switch -- but it's the same switch in most
cases.

>> What does that have to do with anything? The T1 still drops into a phone
>> switch and uses up channels.

True. But...

> T1's are designed to stay up all the time, and centrex lines aren't. It
> doesn't really solve the capacity problem, but when Bell sells a T1 they
> sell it with the full knowledge that the line will be using all channels
> all the time (unless its a frac T). [...]

Nope, nope, nope. Telco expects the number of channels in use on a "digital
service entrance" (T1 with DS0a channels) be precisely equal to the number
of channels in use on 24 copper pairs. What the DSE saves is copper pairs,
and cable weight in both the telco CO and the customer premise. DSE is also
easier to diagnose problems with since the switch can tickle your CSU and
run BERT without any physical human intervention. Some PUC's allow telcos
to charge less for DSE, others (here in California for example) force telco
to charge for the "bearer" circuit and also charge normal tariffs on the
DS0a channels (1ML, Centrex, whatever.)

> I can see Bell charging more for a Centrex line, but I can't see Bell
> charging more for a T1 or T3 _just_ because an ISP is using it.

The PUC-driven rate structures all take account of the cost of provision.
Unlimited local calling (the life blood of the Internet right now) is priced
at a low fixed rate because the PUC knows that most of those circuits will
be on hook most of the time, and the ones that are off hook will usually have
digitally aggregatable and compressable voice traffic on them most of the
time, and the calls that have noncompressable FAX or modem traffic are assumed
to be short and comparatively infrequent.

None of this is true of an ISP customer, who tends to leave their link up for
many hours at a time, generating noncompressable audio signals most of the
time they're online. The telcos are within their rights to ask the PUC for
a different rate, and the means to detect/enforce that rate, since the
alternative is that they raise the unlimited local calling rates for all
customers (even those not using modems for many hours at a time.)

This wasn't an issue when only one person in 10,000 was an Internet user.

On Nov 10, 13:23, Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu <Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu> wrote:
> It is possible that modem calls are a bad deal for phone companies, but
> it is also possible they are a good deal. Does anyone really know?

Tuppence worth: A largish Scandinavian PTT evaluated their costs
a couple of years ago and found that the call setup cost them on the
order of USD 1.50 and the conversation practically nothing (this is
from speaking to one of their senior tech people). This may be
ignoring the fact that if the conversation is "free", then people
(and modems) tend to talk longer, but they actually wanted to change
their charging structure to match, but the regulators refused.

Umm ... what is com-priv stuff doing on NANOG?

--
====== ___ === Per G. Bilse, Mgr Network Operations Ctr
===== / / / __ ___ _/_ ==== EUnet Communications Services B.V.
==== /--- / / / / /__/ / ===== Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
=== /___ /__/ / / /__ / ====== tel: +31 20 6233803, fax: +31 20 6224657
=== ======= 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865
=== Connecting Europe since 1982 === http://www.EU.net; e-mail: bilse@EU.net

The question is where are the real costs of a local phone call?
Are they in the call setup? Are they in the length of time for
the call? Some combination? What switch resources need to be expanded
to deal with long holding time calls? What switch resources can be
reduced if you need to process fewer call setups?

It is possible that modem calls are a bad deal for phone companies, but
it is also possible they are a good deal. Does anyone really know?

-Jeff Ogden
Merit

>ISP's should consider using a DS1 or better to deliver dialtone for their
>modem banks. It makes alot of sense for the ISP and the phone company.
>Delivering dialtone over a T1 is certainly more cost effective than paying
>a %400 increase for Centrex lines.

> Scott

Nope, it isn't . At least not in Nynex land. Tariffs are stupid and don't
make sense , I know. If you get your phone lines delivered via T1 in NYC,
you pay about $550 for a local T1. 24 POTS lines run about $600 (business
rate). Now of course, you are sitting there with your SmartJack, and need
to shell out $3K-$10K for a channel bank, or buy a USR Total Control rack
(or a Livingston Pop-in-a-rack). Your cost per line/modem/terminal server
port has just exploded, congratulations, but you don't save any significant
amount per month for this arrangement.
Given that you have to provide about one line per 10 customers (SLIP/PPP)
these days for decent quality service, you are in serious trouble with
your cash flow...

The question is where are the real costs of a local phone call?
Are they in the call setup? Are they in the length of time for
the call? Some combination? What switch resources need to be expanded
to deal with long holding time calls? What switch resources can be
reduced if you need to process fewer call setups?

It is possible that modem calls are a bad deal for phone companies, but
it is also possible they are a good deal. Does anyone really know?

-Jeff Ogden
Merit

This is classic traffic engineering. The cost of providing service is almost
exclusively governed by capacity size, and that is chosen following a sole
parameter: peak usage. You never ever want to run out of local switch
trunks for local calls: modern switch matrixes can interconnect 50% of
all lines internally, interconnecting trunks to other switches can handle
maybe 20% of line capacity.
Traffic patterns show that peak usage is during business hours, with call
volume (lines engaged) being 3-4 times the average of after-hour use.

There is no telco in the world, that can show me they are being ripped off
by the growing number of modem users, this is really just another case of
'cashing in on the super information highway' . The few people who stay
on 24 hours are an EXCEPTION, not a rule, and in most cases such people
have several phone lines in their home (I have 3, one is on 24 hours , hence on
average I don't use my phone lines more than 33% of all times, as the
other lines are seldomly in use: the phone co. is cashing in by selling me
three lines !).
Also: there are many people who get second phone lines exclusively for
modem use now, hence a single modem line an ISP has installed might create
an additional 2-3 lines with residential customers. Did you ever hear the
phone co. complaining about too many residential (or other) phone lines ?
All Nynex whines of how residential service would really cost them much more
than the customer is actually paying aside: this must be one of the really
dirty secrets of the RBOCS.

Short: off-peak usage of telco facilities is not costing the telco any
real money, (this is especially true for LD companies!) as the capacity
planning (and purchase) is governed by peak usage, any screams by them in
that general direction should be ignored, their monopolistic actions
fought with a vengeance: EdTel of Edmonton,Alberta started making noises
as described no sooner than they were beginning to plan their own internet
service. I hear they have a special tariff discount for fax lines (business
or residential) too, or at least used to.
Are they talking with two tounges ?

bye,Kai

Don't forget to take into account, that the majority of the Telcos' charge
metered rates for commercial local calls (and even non-commercial in sime
areas). Therefore, they are deriving revenue from the use of the local
facilities and they should have the operating revenues generated from
these charges to re-invest in local switches, etc. The local per
minuite rate in our markets is not inexpensive, and is charged to all
call originators.

R S Ashton
Ashton Communications Corporation
ACNET.NET

On Fri, 10 Nov 1995
Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu wrote:

> The question is where are the real costs of a local phone call?
> Are they in the call setup? Are they in the length of time for
> the call? Some combination? What switch resources need to be expanded
> to deal with long holding time calls? What switch resources can be
> reduced if you need to process fewer call setups?
>
> It is possible that modem calls are a bad deal for phone companies, but
> it is also possible they are a good deal. Does anyone really know?
>
> -Jeff Ogden
> Merit
>

Sounds awfully familiar... The knee jerk reaction of
Minsvyazi in USSR was exactly the same. Good thing, it
later turned out that Anti-Monopoly Commitee were in
fact customers of RELCOM.

Thanks, Paul.

--vadim

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 06:59:46 -0500
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Subject: Bell vs. Internet Providers (fwd)


From the 'For What Its Worth' Department.

- paul


BELL VS. INTERNET PROVIDERS
Bell Canada plants to increase line rate charges for Internet service
providers by as much as 400%, saying the higher charge is necessary because
those providers use lines for 55 to 60 minutes every hour compared with
voice usage on a Centrex line of about 10 minutes. The service providers
say the move aims to eliminate competition for Bell when it introduces its
Worldlinx Internet access by the end of this year. (Montreal Gazette 9 Nov
95 D7)

*****************************************************************
Edupage, 9 Nov 95. Edupage, a summary of news items on information
technology, is provided three times each week as a service by Educom,
a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities
seeking to transform education through the use of information technology.
*****************************************************************

>>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:57:18 -0500, kai@netcom.com (Kai) said:


>ISP's should consider using a DS1 or better to deliver dialtone for their
>modem banks. It makes alot of sense for the ISP and the phone company.
>Delivering dialtone over a T1 is certainly more cost effective than paying
>a %400 increase for Centrex lines.

> Scott

Kai> Nope, it isn't . At least not in Nynex land. Tariffs are stupid and don't
Kai> make sense , I know. If you get your phone lines delivered via T1 in NYC,
Kai> you pay about $550 for a local T1. 24 POTS lines run about $600 (business
Kai> rate). Now of course, you are sitting there with your SmartJack, and need
Kai> to shell out $3K-$10K for a channel bank, or buy a USR Total Control rack
Kai> (or a Livingston Pop-in-a-rack). Your cost per line/modem/terminal server
Kai> port has just exploded, congratulations, but you don't save any significant
Kai> amount per month for this arrangement.
Kai> Given that you have to provide about one line per 10 customers (SLIP/PPP)
Kai> these days for decent quality service, you are in serious trouble with
Kai> your cash flow...


In USWest land, you get to pay for the T1 local loop, and you still have to
pay $35/mo for each business phone line riding on the T1!

> Short: off-peak usage of telco facilities is not costing the telco any
> real money, (this is especially true for LD companies!) as the capacity
> planning (and purchase) is governed by peak usage, any screams by them in
> that general direction should be ignored, their monopolistic actions
> fought with a vengeance: EdTel of Edmonton,Alberta started making noises
> as described no sooner than they were beginning to plan their own internet
> service. I hear they have a special tariff discount for fax lines (business
> or residential) too, or at least used to.
> Are they talking with two tounges ?
>
> bye,Kai

Bell Atlantic has recently been running an ad campaign here in the
Washington, DC, area offering a $30 discount on the installation of
second residential lines. The ads suggest that they are great for
modem users and families with teenagers. I don't think they would do
this if they didn't think they would make money on it.

However, at the same time they are trying to introduce a residential
ISDN tariff in Maryland that has all calls, both voice and data,
charged by the minute, even during off peak times.

>> no, they have simply identified someone whom they think has no
>> alternative to just bleeding more. Ah, the perks of the monarchy.
>
>the story i heard was not about usage percentage by time, but rather
>usage percentage by bandwidth. modems squeeze every possible transition
>out of the 3KHz band, while voice calls have few tones and much silence.
>this means a modem call takes more bandwidth out of the inter-CO trunks
>and LD aggregates. the telco's don't use strict DS0a TDM internally.
>
>the only reason why usage percentage by time matters to a telco is to
>differentiate between the economic impact of G3 FAX vs. V.32bis modems:
>they both use all of the link's transitions but FAXes are usually short
>lived and so there's nothing to worry about.
>
>i'm not happy about the trend toward detecting modem users and charging
>more for them, but it's an inevitable technical/economic necessity and
>that means the PUCs around the united states are all going to have to
>let it happen. what's amazed me for the last few years is that it's
>taken the telcos so long to realize what they need to do and do it.

I observe a lot of users expecting to use ISDN connections as if they were a
dedicated line. "ISDN is cheaper than Frame Relay". I have noted that some
ISDN tariffs call out higher prices for "data" use of a B channel than analog
use. It seems that the phone companies are trying to take advantage of new
environments to increase income.

On the other hand, it costs a bit more to install ISDN than more analog
circuits. I also suspect that long holding times take up ISDN switch
capacity. I wonder if telephone engineering is keeping up with the usage
changes.





Dave Nordlund Dir of Technical Svcs
Databank, Inc 913/842-6699
1473 Hwy 40 nordlund@databank.com
Lawrence, KS 66044 "Your Key to the Internet