Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.dcom,net.mail
Subject: Re: PC Pursuit (plus opinions)
Message-ID: <761@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 19:17:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.761
Posted: Tue Aug 27 19:17:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 10:29:27 EDT
References: <63@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 77
Xref: watmath net.dcom:1209 net.mail:1089

Some tests someone ran locally with PC Pursuit failed
dismally.  Terrible throughput at anything faster than 300 bps.  There
still seems to be extreme variability from place to place.

Also, I was told (off the record) that the implementation of non-local-
calling blocking would take place "as soon as they could get accurate
prefix info for their tables" to block out most prefixes.  They also
mentioned that they might be asking for certification that the
service is not being used by commercial firms but only by 
individuals, since they don't want commercial traffic people tying
things up.  The thing they DON'T want is people tying up the dialers
with call after call.  Another possibility mentioned was a "cap"
on the amount of time the service could be used in any one 24 hour period,
so "everyone would be able to get some time."  A one or two hour limit
was mentioned.  Anyway, all of this was off the record.  Take with
as many grains of salt as you wish.

----

Opinion section starts here:

If you analyze this service, it's pretty clear what's going on.
GTE is attempting to maximize use of facilities already in place
that tend to sit idle outside the business day.  Those facilities
are not massive (24 dialers for all of Los Angeles, for example).
It seems unclear how they can EXPAND beyond the current levels based
on the $25 flat rate fee, since local telephone lines and dialers
are going to be one of the most expensive recurring costs in the
operation.  It's also pretty obvious why they are concerned about
making non-local calls.  Take a call from L.A. Central (where TELENET
has their node) to Santa Monica.  This is a very modest ZUM call (there
are MUCH more expensive calls possible within the tiny 213 area code).
Even so, that call (evening rate, night is a little cheaper) is 10 cents
for the first minute and $.05 for each additional.  So a one hour
call (either on the originating or terminating end of the call) is
going to cost them something like $3.00/hour.  Figure that (until
blocking is in place) many calls are of this sort, and you might
find that $6.00/hour (considering both ends) will be the minimum cost
of such calls (ignoring equipment and other costs at this point).
If you make FIVE one-hour calls of this sort during evening hours
during the month, you've already cost them more than the price
of the service!  It takes a few more hours (or slightly more 
expensive non-local calls) to reach that level at late night-rate, but
you can still reach the "no-profit" point for them damn fast.

Hell, businesses in most areas pay about $.60/hour even for LOCAL
calls--never mind the toll and ZUM charges!  All of this cuts
into GTE's profit margin on such a service.  Even if GTE opens
the service up to other metro areas, the fundamental economics
don't change.

So, what will occur?  Let's ignore service quality issues (throughput,
dialer congestion, insufficient ports, etc.) for the moment.  The
sheer economics of the phone charges will either force the blockage
of many non-local calls (which will make the service much less
generally usable) or force restructuring of the service.  Either
prices will change, or service limitations will be set in place,
or... something else will have to give.  A couple of hundred
BBS fanatics in each of the 12 metro areas could totally tie up
the service in nothing flat.  Once again, I'm only considering port
and dialer congestion, not the overall impact on TELENET throughput
of all these people.

One can't help but suspect that GTE is already very aware of the
changes that will have to occur.  One might suspect that what they're
trying to do is get people signed up now--and then announce whatever
changes (in pricing, type of service, etc.) that they want down
the line.  I guess there's nothing terribly wrong with doing that--but
I think people are being a little naive is they think that such
a service can continue in its currently announced form and at
currently announced prices indefinitely!  I fully expect to see
changes--or else the congestion and other factors will simply
make the service unusable except for BBS crazies who don't
have to worry about having anything important going wrong if they
can't get through much of the time...

--Lauren--