Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.iso:202 comp.std.internat:445
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!jfcl.dec.com!frg
From: frg@jfcl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: ISDN & the Police State
Message-ID: <436@jfcl.dec.com>
Date: 19 Jan 89 19:19:46 GMT
References: <1943@cpoint.UUCP> <5291@pdn.UUCP> <1960@cpoint.UUCP>
Reply-To: frg@jfcl.UUCP (Fred R. Goldstein)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 59

In article <1960@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joacim Martillo) writes:
[various flames deleted]
Yakim, you're always entertaining, even if your facts aren't always
straight!  C'mon, you went to a few T1D1 meetings yourself -- do you
really think that AT&T was running the show?  Just because Don
Stanwyck is very effective doesn't mean that the rest of us don't
have a significant say.  Besides, Don _does_ understand more than
voice.  (Even if some of the delegation doesn't...)

>Extension phones are not possible with ISDN. (The phone company always
>wanted to charge you for this.)  
This is not exactly true.  Extension phones are indeed a casualty of
the ISDN S-bus interface.  The Passive Bus is truly brain-dead, to 
use a net phrase, but then the User-Network Interface is at U or T,
not as S.  I rather like the idea of putting a Terminal Adapter in
the basement, keeping the analog phones in the house, and running
the ISDN digital interface up to the computer!  I wonder what
interesting hardware work-arounds will be made for this.

>For no good reason, the proposed
>ISDN numbering scheme is incompatible with the current numbering scheme
>which makes it very likely that ISDN users will be have difficulty
>setting up calls which interwork to a non-ISDN users.  ISDN users will
>effectively be stuck on isolated desert islands.  
 Just not true.  E.164 is a superset of E.163.  In North America, the
ISDN Numbering Plan will include the telephone numbering plan, and all
ISDN phones will be able to dial all POTS phones.  SOME POTS phones
won't be able to dial SOME ISDN devices prior to 1996 or so, IF
the numbering plan (interim) for non-LEC carriers isn't done right,
but I don't even think that'll be the case.

Now Swissnet, the national data ISDN in CH, will be an island at first,
but then Swiss people aren't supposed to _use_ telecommunications,
they're supposed to look at the fine Swiss craftsmanship and don't 
touch or else!  (Ever price a call from CH to USA?)

>>The increased bandwidth alone makes the offering very interesting.
>
>What increased bandwidth?  You can already lease 56kbps lines or T1
>lines?  An ISDN-PBX-LAN would be significantly lower bandwidth
>than most other LAN technologies.  I suppose there might be some
>value to ISDN in providing remote connectivity but if I were a
>network administrator I suspect I could establish remote connectivity
>more cheaply by judiciously establishing point-to-point leased lines
>between remote networks.  
Absolutely backwards, with regard to WANs.  Today, 56 kbps lines
cost about 3 times as much as bananalogue voice-grade circuits, and
typically take months to get, since they're special-engineered on the
pole.  Comes the Revolution, every POTS line will provide 64 kbps
for voice, so it'll take three days to install 64 kbps, and it'll 
cost little more (or same as) voice.  SWITCHED 64 will cost like
switched voice, more than private lines, but the economic basis of
high 64 kbps leased line rates will go away too.

As a LAN technology, of course, ISDN is as useful as socks on a snail.

(Gee, isn't it fun to have Yakim to flame at?  Hmmm, this isn't 
supposed to be a flame group.  Sorry.) 
     fred