Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!yale-com!leichter
From: leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Modem Users Beware: BELL $$$
Message-ID: <2164@yale-com.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Oct-83 10:04:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: yale-com.2164
Posted: Fri Oct 14 10:04:47 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Oct-83 05:14:40 EDT
References: cornell.5480
Lines: 45

I don't like the idea of Bell charging a lot for home modems, but I dislike
uninformed flames like this one even more.  Hal Perkins is uninformed both
about technology and economics:

Technology:  It is quite true that the local loop between your home and your
local office is used by you only; however, there is obviously other equipment
involved in making your call. Something has to connect your local loop to the
other end of your conversation.  What that "something" is depends on the type
of equipment in your central office, but there are always limits on central
office interconnects that are a lot smaller than "every circuit active".
The limits are there to keep the price of the equipment reasonable.  It may
be that the costs will change, and that new technologies may even make it
possible to just allow every line to be active, but that's not the case today
and is not likely to be soon.  (As a simple example of resources you use
whether you talk or not:  Where do you think the power to drive your phone
comes from?)

Economic:  "The ought to be forced to put in a technology that will allow
charging by bits sent, etc."  What an amazing statement!  You, a member of
a small minority of people who use the system in an idiosyncratic way, want
to impose the enormous cost of replacing billions of dollars of capitol
equipment, which is otherwise good for another 20 years or more, on everyone
else.  I remember bitches from years gone by about "Long distance would be
much cheaper if Bell would use sattelites but they refuse because they have
all this money invested in microwaves".  Yes - so what?  The costs of setting
up a national network are IMMENSE, and can only be justified by assuming the
equipment will last for quite a while.  That means you can't throw everything
you have out for the latest do-hicky.  These new features are becoming availa-
ble now because competitors like MCI and Tymnet are moving in with no existing
capitol investment and applying new technologies to exactly the customers who
have a use for it.  (I know this sounds like AT&T's "cream-skimming" argument
against competitors; it is.  As a general rule, I dislike monopolies and
regulation, but I must say that in the case of AT&T the likely course for
telephone service in the near future is toward poorer, more expensive service,
on average, as a result of the breakup.)  If you want to pay for connections
on the basis of bits sent, get a Tymnet or Telenet account.  Of course, you
still have to get to them by phone...sorry, you lose, until someone puts up
the money to pay for the new equipment to provide you with another option.
TANSTAFL - someone has to pay for that stuff - why do you think it should be
anyone but you?

BTW, I have never worked for AT&T or any of its constituent parts.

							-- Jerry
					decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale