OK, I've got to pipe in on this one. I work for a dreaded
telecom and actually deal with the issues of network costing as
a major part of my job.
> understand that "bits is bits" and that it does not matter if
> the bit in question belongs to a phone conversation with
> Grandma or a post to the OM-List.
Actually, yes it does. Voice is a regulated mode of
communication and Internet traffic is totally deregulated.
Carriers track these separately. In fact, we are required by
law (USA) to make sure that one doesn't subsidize the other.
Ever since the Worldcom fiasco, the laws are getting even more
specific.
> If there were more demand for voice calls to Grandma, they'd
> build the capacity and raise their price if they didn't make
> the money on volume.
Actually, the network is designed for a certain loading. Think
Holiday phone calls, here. Most of the time, the vast majority
of the voice network is idle. The voice network is mostly TDM
(time division multiplex) and doesn't scale automatically.
Either the trunks are there or they're not. In a packet-based
network it's more like a bunch of firehoses inside a pipe. Not
all of them can be fully inflated at the same time, but it
adjusts according to demand up to a maximum pipe capacity. With
an IP-based network, maximum reliability/performanced is reached
at about 40% of rated maximum bit-rate. In most
office-networks, you'll see catastropic network slowdowns when
the network reaches 25% utilization. The telecom industry is
moving towards VOiP for LD trunking. However, the network trunks
are dedicated and isolated from data traffic. TDM still rules
for interconnection between non-Tandem switches.
> So if they have to build more infrastructure for digital data,
> they should build it and charge what they have to to the
> people using it if they can't make the money on volume...
The average data transfer load and speed is doubling every two
years per user. This is a combination of increased access
speeds (DSL,Cable) but also content. I'm involved in so may
SONET system turnups, it's crazy. We're needing to double our
network every two years to the cost of millions and millions of
dollars with an ever decreasing revenue from the customer. The
access fees are getting cheeper ($19.95 DSL), but the network
itself isn't. It costs $75-100 per data customer per year JUST
to upgrade network (routers, fiber terminals, ATM switches) to
accomodate the latest in FLASH advertising on Google.
> The Googles and Yahoos and Vonages of the world buy
> this capacity and, if they have to, can sell more ads or
> premium services or subscriptions or whatever they find
> saleable or feasible.
These content providers are buying capacity only on their side
of the network. They don't pony up a dime to those providing
network access to the users. It's a very lopsided equation.
> And, if Smith got its way, don't you think that the service
> providers
> who got aced out could identify traffic carried by BellSouth
> customers
> and slow _it_ down or outright deny it?
This is coming folks. Every provider in the world has been
waiting for somebody to take the inital arrows on this. You'll
see it impact first with VOiP. There's an attempt (and
rightfully so) to regulate ALL voice traffic--including Vonage.
They key factor is whether all voice is regulated or all voice
is deregulated. I'm not sure you REALLY want to live in that
world where it's entirely deregulated.
> There are too many alternatives to the "Baby Bells" for them
> to slit their own throats like that.
The Internet is becomming an "essential" means of communication.
It won't be long, I believe, for it to get regulated as the
phone industry is regulated. When this happens, you'll see that
the alternatvies FINALLY have to play by the same rules as the
mainline carriers.
> These guys talk a nice game, but I really don't see it
> happening quite the way they think it will.
This BS guy is actually more "with it" than you might think. The
issues he raises is actually dealing with the entire
communications network (all modes) than with just whether or not
Aunt Mimi has DSL or High Speed Internet over Cable. The issues
have more to do with the Googles and Vonages selling
non-regulated alternatives in a regulated industry.
Just an example here: We do battle with a cable company that
now provides VOiP services. As they work through a loophole in
the law, they don't have to be regulated as a CLEC. As they
aren't a true "telephone company", or even pretending to be one,
your phone service isn't tagged with $15 per month in government
taxes, fees and other doodads. On the flipside, though, when
the power goes off, can you actually make a phone call? Do you
really want your 911 dialing capability to be as reliable as
Channel 86 on your television?
I'm involved with WiMAX development and implementation. We are
able to use this technology to provide regulated services, but
we also have to, by law, make sure that the implementation is
five-9's. Yes, I can offer basic phone service over WiMAX, but
inorder to achieve five-9's, I've got to do it with redundant
towers, backup power at the customer prem and all sorts of other
crazy things. Phone service absolutely cannot be interrupted
due to rain/snow or a power-failure or even the physical loss of
a tower. We cannot experience the fiasco of a local cable
operator when they lost the cable network to 1/2 the state five
minutes before the kick-off of the Super Bowl.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|