Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Ken Stox Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Message-ID: <12490@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 23 Sep 90 15:16:18 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: BALR Corporation Lines: 44 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 671, Message 6 of 12 Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the operating company) of a data call versus a voice call. All the statements I have seen, so far, seem to agree that a data call costs the operating company the same as a voice call. TTBOMK (To The Best Of My Knowledge), this is not true for the following reasons: First of all, I should state this is the case for a DIGITAL phone system. If everything were still analog, many would be false. In fact, this is where the problem lies! It seems that everyone is using the analog case. 1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only be that way until it reaches the C.O. 2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through the phone network. 3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence. When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc. 4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not allow any other packets through. So, we can now understand why the RBOC's get so blustered about data traffic. The service that they expected you to use 50% of, you are using 100% of. I am sure we all feel a great deal of pity for that poor accountant, who, at this very moment is writhing in agony over uncollected potential revenue. No doubt, in the not so distant future, the RBOC's will figure out how to bill you on a packet by packet basis. This may be the beginning of a much more equitable method of billing ( right, when hell freezes over :-> ) by which the customer purchases X number of packets at a given routing grade. Well, someday, maybe ISDN. Ken Stox internet: stox@balr.com BALR Corporation uucp: {uunet|att|attmail}!balr!stox 600 Enterprise Drive voice: (708) 575-8200