| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 26.09.99 09:57l 198 Lines 7811 Bytes #-9759 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_241M
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/241M
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990926/0245Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:2720 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_241
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19943 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 00:55:15 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015959 ; Sun, 26 Sep 99 01:09:44 MET
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 01:04:01 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_241M>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/241M
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> have enough lines and modems to service everyone, and would not be getting
> the money to buy them. (providers are now successfully running a 10
> customers/line ratio here, the cheap/free ones have an even higher ratio)
I'm glad to see somebody has a clue about ISP cost structures. If you
look at the cost per port of an ISP in the United States in a major
metropolitan areas such as Boston or New York, the aggregate cost of
infrastructure runs around 75 to $100 per port per month. This is the
cost of a phone line, modem, router, and fractional bandwidth to the
Internet. (For those in the know, yes, I'm glossing over the
complexities in a pop especially one with regionally aggregated lines
and high-capacity NAS's).
If you look at from another dimension, on average dial-up customers
are online for 32 hours (and climbing) per month. The line cost for
that customer ranges anywhere from four dollars to $28 the pending on
if you're in a major urban area or back woods South Carolina. the
balance of your $20 goes to paying peoples salaries, your share of the
backbone, customer support, servers (email, Web, DNS, etc.) and all
that corporate overhead we all know and love.
most ISPs are running in the red. The real cost for providing dial-up
Internet service is actually closer to $25 per month.
when people nail up a connection because they are paying for
"unlimited" service, they are really denying service to other users of
that resource. It's not unlike sitting on a frequency with a brick on
the mic switch.
Some day I'll give you my rant on how it's not high-speed people need
but persistence of connection with periodic bursts of traffic.
--- eric
--
Eric S. Johansson ka1eec esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us
This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking
>.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Sep 1999 02:10:31 GMT
From: "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote:
> Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Isn't competition great?
> I don't think it is. Competition in a small network as we have here only
> means extra interconnection costs and overhead because of multiple small
> companies operating the same services (administration, customer support,
> etc). Up to now, competition has only increased the prices here because
> these extra costs somehow need to be recovered.
welcome to the wonderful world of natural monopolies. A natural
monopoly is any service in which it doesn't make sense to have
competition. Examples of natural monopolies are: water, sewer, power
lines, telephone lines, and roads. Note that I did not include power
generation, water production, and telecommunication services.
As you pointed out Rob, there are tremendous inefficiencies when there
is competition at the natural monopoly level. It makes no sense to
replicate last mile infrastructure (wire, switches etc.).
However, even in a small town it makes sense to have competition if
you allow for competition at the right level. For example, it makes
good economic and social sense for a municipality to manage the
quality of water, roads, power lines, and telecommunications lines
(copper and fiber). Competition is then had at the entry points to
these "natural monopoly" services. In the case of electrical power,
paying for electricity from different generation sources. In the case
of telecommunications, buying local loop, long distance, and data
services from different vendors.
one white paper I'm working on is exploring the economic and social
impacts of a municipality providing fiber to the house and allowing
multiple content providers access at the head end of the fiber
network. One of the interesting twists is that it makes it possible
for easy development of metropolitan area exchanges and caches which
would reduce load on major backbones. It also is a key to breaking
the monopoly lock cable companies have on various cities.
--- eric
--
Eric S. Johansson ka1eec esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us
This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:26:44 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
>
> when people nail up a connection because they are paying for
> "unlimited" service, they are really denying service to other users of
> that resource. It's not unlike sitting on a frequency with a brick on
> the mic switch.
Funny coincidence there... In my dealings with my ISP, old Packet radio
habits tended to come into play, such as planning what I wanted to do before
I ever connect, scheduling most of my use during off-peak hours, and in
general attempting to reduce the amount of time I spend actually connected,
as in downloading the mail and disconnecting before reading it, then
composing offline and only hooking up long enough to send what I have queued
and pick up any new incoming stuff. I always figured that my behaviour was
just a hang-over from my use of packet and never mentioned it, thinking it
was probably not appropriate and would make me look like a "hayseed".
Other folks talk about being hooked up for hours. One local ham bitterly
complained because the ISP would disconnect him after being connected five
hours straight.
Now I can affect a snotty, superior attitude about my Internet habits
instead of thinking that I am probably not acting appropriately. I guess
old, brain-dead, burned into the groove habits can come in handy every once
in a while!
--
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:46:49 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7i=sN=Yelcc7vFpiLMTqYr82zMeW@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 06:31:29 -0500, "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
wrote:
> >
> >Brian Kantor <brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu> wrote in message
> >news:7se4el$rm4$1@karoshi.ucsd.edu...
> >> So to sum up:
> >>
> >> Gary maintains that a network may well not be worth doing unless it is
> >> high performance.
> >
> >...And since that is not practical, Gary maintains that it's "OK" to just
> >get on the Internet and PRETEND that that high-performance network
exists.
> >This is much more important to Gary, as as ham, than using radio.
Uh, Oh! Here comes the nasty, personal suff that you get when you hit the
"sore spot", dead center.
>
> You continue to spout this lie, Charles, but you can't back it up. Our
network
> is 100% amateur radio, always has been. One of our users offers a wired
> internet gateway, but it is for wired internet access only, ie like a
phone patch
> on a voice repeater. It is not used to route between segments of the
network.
> (It couldn't, that would require at least two wired internet connections,
and we
> only have one.) You're not only an idiot, you're a stupid lying idiot, a
fool, and a
> buffoon who can't tell the difference between a service offered over the
network
> and the network itself.
Does your network cover the entire planet, Gary, or does it do as I suspect
To be continued in digest: hd_99_241N
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
