Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: tony@oha.uucp (Tony Olekshy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Modem vs LD carrier, a data point.
Message-ID: <15399@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 90 04:22:38 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Lines: 23
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 880, Message 7 of 10


In message <326@comtst.UUCP>, mdv@comtst.UUCP (Mike Verstegen) writes:

| On a related note, I recently did an experiment with our connection to
| UUNET with respect to through-put rate. Previously we had been using
| MCI and got throughput (logged by HDB uucp xferstats) of about 800
| bytes/sec. I then changed the UUNET number to include the 10288 AT&T
| selection prefix, and now we're getting 1050 bytes/sec throughput.
| The 30% increase certainly makes up for the few percent difference
| in cost.

Conclusion: when considering long distance carriers for data
transmission using adaptive modems, you should to measure each
carrier's success with the actual modem and factor it into the cost
per unit time before sorting.


Yours etc., Tony Olekshy.       Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA
				  BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET
				    uucp: alberta!oha!tony


Blowing is not playing the flute, you must make use of your fingers.--Goethe