Xref: utzoo news.sysadmin:2094 news.admin:4561
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection
Message-ID: <56529@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 26 Jan 89 08:46:35 GMT
References: <102@i2ack.UUCP> <9198@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> <483@telly.UUCP>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 22

In article <483@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>Discussions in comp.dcom.modems suggest that Telebit-speed transmission
>can be more cost effective than even cheap X.25 setups like PC Pursuit.
>If this can be used to carry data between Europe and America more cheaply,
>isn't is worth at least a trial?

Actually, EUNet is investigating a number of strategies to reduce costs, both
within Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world. I know very little
about it, although certainly TrailBlazers are one of the items on the table.
Yes, TrailBlazers between any two points in known space are almost always both
cheaper and faster than X.25, albiet nowhere near as reliable.

It will be interesting to see how eucon's costs *really* work out. I suspect
not all the different from EUNet. My only real gripe with EUNet is don't think
they have a billing strategy that fairly considers sites with differing usage
patterns. Small sites tend to have disproportionately large bills. I much
prefer the ACSNet implementation, where sites essentially pay their own full
end-to-end costs. (Yes yes Robert, I know that's not quite right, but close
enough for the current discussion. I think ACSNet billing is more equitable
than EUNet billing.)

<csg>