🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <67bese$bq3@dmapub.dma.org>,
Daniel Tasch <taschda@dmapub.dma.org> wrote:
>I have a question regarding the value of an isp customer.  Assume that in a
>mid sized city with several isps, one of them wants to get out of the
>business, and wants to sell his customers to one of the other isps.  How
>much are they worth?
>I am basically getting two differing opinions about this.

Only two?

This is not a simple question to respond.  Basically, if an ISP is
getting out of the business and wants to sell its customers, it has to
find someone who's willing to take on that kind of growth.  The value
of the ISP customer is only one factor in the equation.

rone
-- 
Ron Echeverri	<rone+sig@best.net>	| "Happiness is free, and love is
Systems/Usenet Administration		|  relatively cheap, but HATE costs
Best Internet Communications, Inc.	|  more than you have in your wallet."
<URL:http://www.ennui.org/~rone/>	|  - Tjames Madison <tjames@pigdog.org>

In ba.internet Daniel Tasch <taschda@dmapub.dma.org> wrote:

=> I have a question regarding the value of an isp customer.  Assume that in a
=> mid sized city with several isps, one of them wants to get out of the
=> business, and wants to sell his customers to one of the other isps.  How
=> much are they worth?

Depends.

=> I am basically getting two differing opinions about this.

=> One opinion is that the customers to be sold will generate $120,000 next
=> year (500 customers at $20/mo x 12 months) and are thus worth a lot of
=> money.

Not if it costs you $19.75 per customer to run services for them.

=> The other opinion is that isp customers are not loyal, may not be around
=> for long, you may only be able to retain 1/3 of the customers purchased,
=> and they will switch providers at the drop of a hat.  Also, if the selling
=> isp just goes out of business, the buying isp would get some of the
=> customers anyway, so why pay.  Thus they are not worth much, if anything at
=> all.

If you keep the customers happy, they will hang around.  If you can't
offer them a good service for the money they give you, they will leave.
It's simple supply and demand.

OK, here's questions thrown back to you.  Why is this ISP going out of
business?  What makes you think that another ISP will do better?

-- 
-----
Name:  Harold Sasaki
Email: hsasaki @ harold.com (remove spaces)
Web:   http://www.harold.com/

grep@shorelink.com (George Bonser) writes:

>I think this is pretty much the truth.  I doubt anyone ever got rich selling
>consumer dialup ISP service.  Quite a few have gone broke, though.

Oh, people have gotten rich, never doubt! It's just that they
got rich by selling the company, not making money at the business :)

Karl

Daniel Tasch <taschda@dmapub.dma.org> wrote:

> I am basically getting two differing opinions about this.

> One opinion is that the customers to be sold will generate
> $120,000 next year (500 customers at $20/mo x 12 months) and are
> thus worth a lot of money.

You need to distinguish between revenue and profits.  The lump-sum
value of a customer is the present value of the future profit
stream generated from that customer's account.

Let's say for example that an ISP's profit is 10% of gross 
revenue; that an average customer stays on at a given ISP for
12 months; the average customer generates $20/month in revenue
for the ISP; and that the relevant interest rate (cost of 
capital to the business) is 1.5 %/month.  Then the value of
an average custome would be:

     (sum from i=1 to i=12) (0.1 * $20) (.985 ** i)

which is about $22.  What this means is that if you buy
customers for $22 a head, you break even on the deal -- your
rate of return is equal to the cost of borrowing the money
needed make the buy.  So, to come out ahead you want to pay somewhat
less than $22 -- say about $15 per customer so that the
project is worth your time.

The numbers above should of course be adjusted to reflect
the actual profit levels and other conditions; but in any
case, there is no way a customer is worth hundreds of dollars
or even $50 I would suspect.

Steve

grep@shorelink.com (George Bonser) writes:

>And even then, I doubt the dialup consumer accounts were worth very much, it
>is things like web hosting, co-location and business connectivity that make
>you your money.

I think you are right.. Part of the problem is that the $19.95/mo
deal got "standard", and for the vast majority of ISPs, you can't
make money at that level..   You add up the costs and your margins
are just too low..

Karl

A key issue in determining the value of the dialup customer of
an ISP is the general fiscal health of the ISP itself.

Note that Mindspring, a primarily dialup-oriented ISP, is
actually turning a handy profit. The publically traded 
value of the company seems to assume a 36 month loyalty
(they trade at 3 times annual revenues). 

But most dialup ISPs aren't profitable.

Justin

:In article <349EF663.97A@onramp.net>,
:Justin Sewell  <jbsewell@onramp.net> wrote:
:>A key issue in determining the value of the dialup customer of
:>an ISP is the general fiscal health of the ISP itself.
:>
:>Note that Mindspring, a primarily dialup-oriented ISP, is
:>actually turning a handy profit. The publically traded 
:>value of the company seems to assume a 36 month loyalty
:>(they trade at 3 times annual revenues). 
:>
:>But most dialup ISPs aren't profitable.
:>
:>Justin

    A straight access provider is typically not profitable,
    but most ISPs are not doing straight dialup access anymore
    (because it's not profitable :-)).  Many are getting into
    value-add:  Webhosting, colocation, and leased lines.  I
    would say the health of the typical ISP is going to be based
    more on the combination of his service offering and his
    competence then on the retention time of the typical dialup
    user.  These other services have a much, much longer customer
    retention and customer loyalty then standard dialup, and
    have higher margins to boot.

    Which brings us to an interesting point:  Of all the ISPs in
    the world, only a few are actually competent.  The rest test
    the murky waters then go under.  This is what I believe is
    happening with a number of other segments of the ISP business. 
    The free-email and free-web-hosting segment, for example.  Read
    this news article and you will see their quandary:

	http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,17515,00.html?owv

    So here we have several of these guys, and they have millions
    of 'users', but the only way they can make money from the 
    free service is to advertise.  Alarm bells going off yet?  No?
    What services are they offering... web pages and email.  What
    services do people protect their privacy on the most?  web pages
    and email.  Is advertising going to work?  Probably not in the
    long run.

    The free email services also face stiff competition from the
    standard ISPs who can offer virtually the same thing as part of
    their standard account and DON'T advertise.

					    -Matt

-- 
    Matthew Dillon   Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
    <dillon@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
    do not under any circumstances send email to joeblow@bigspender.idiom.com
    and, for gods sake, don't email bucktram@popserver.idiom.com

Matt Dillon wrote the quoted material below:
"     Which brings us to an interesting point:  Of all the ISPs in
"     the world, only a few are actually competent.  The rest test
"     the murky waters then go under.  This is what I believe is
"     happening with a number of other segments of the ISP business. 

It is amazing how much like the ISP industry is like the telephone
answering service and voicemail industries.  When I was in those two
industries, it was *easy* for us to compete because the compettion was so
terrible.  

Service was what makes a company grow past a certain point.  Some
companies provide bad service and count on advertising to overtake the
churn of disgruntled customers, but this can go on for only so long before
the rate of return on the advertising goes down the sink.  And all
advertising has a rate of return which diminishes over time.  

-- 
Copyright 1997                                  The Pony Express messenger
dk at wco.com                                     service ran only 2 years
                                                                          

> It is amazing how much like the ISP industry is like the telephone
> answering service and voicemail industries.  When I was in those two
> industries, it was *easy* for us to compete because the compettion was so
> terrible.  
> 
> Service was what makes a company grow past a certain point.  Some
> companies provide bad service and count on advertising to overtake the
> churn of disgruntled customers, but this can go on for only so long
before
> the rate of return on the advertising goes down the sink.  And all
> advertising has a rate of return which diminishes over time.  
> 
> -- 

  I agree with this 100%. Service in a young industry like provideing
internet access is paramount in manageing to keep user churn to minimal
levels. In national providers, AT&T(many will disagree), IBM and Mindspring
have quite a loyal user base because of customer service these ISPs
provide, and are in good positions to grow, while Netcom on the other hand,
and Concentric are loseing users right and left, and MCI, and Sprint, while
not loseing users, are not as popular as ISPs as one would think because of
poor customer service.. AOL, which has horrible service, only manages to
keep on getting new user because of brand name recognition.
  Customer service in the future is going to determine the future of many
small local and regional ISPs.

George Bonser (grep@shorelink.com) wrote:

: > According to an article in the recent Internet World magazine, dial-up 
: > customers aren't worth much, in fact, they're generally a drain on resources 
: > and a net loss.  ISP's make their money selling web hosting and other 
: > business services.

: I think this is pretty much the truth.  I doubt anyone ever got rich selling
: consumer dialup ISP service.  Quite a few have gone broke, though.
It also depends on the amount of providers one has in a country. I
frequently see rates in American mags that make my jaw drop (and wishing
we'd have them here =]) because here there are only 6 big providers and not
too much regional ones. 

But you have a point. The only provider who's getting money out of dial-up
users is owned by our only telecommunication company, so one way or another
they get cash =]

(Not to mention the price for leased lines.. *gah*)

--
Bernhard van Staveren 	     ----       Mungled headers, addresses below.
home:	madcat(at)superunknown.ml.org   work: staveren(at)xirian.demon.nl
"Linux, WinNT and MS-DOS. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

Bernhard van Staveren wrote the quoted material below:
" It also depends on the amount of providers one has in a country. I
" frequently see rates in American mags that make my jaw drop (and wishing
" we'd have them here =]) because here there are only 6 big providers and not
" too much regional ones. 

While people worry about Microsoft's dominance in operating systems, they
need to *really* be worried about companies such as Worldcom, MCI,
Sprintnet, BBN, or whoever's left.  This is the *real* threat.  Why? 
Because people can migrate to other operating systems such as OS/2
(National Public Radio stations have done so, for instance) or to Unix, or
whatever.  If you don't like those offerings you can go back to legacy
code such as DOS, CP/M, PetOS, whatever.  You pay your money and that's
that. Or with Free BSD you won't even need to pay your money.

But where is someone going to go when trying to get connectivity?  They
will ultimately have a choice of maybe 3 providers which can capriciously
set their pricing at any level they want. If you want connectivity, you
pay X amount this month and maybe next month you've got to pay more.
Where else are you going to go?  There is no legacy ISP to fall back on,
no Free ISP.  

Anti-trust laws were written to benefit the consumer, not to benefit X
Company's competitors.  Larry Ellison and other blowhards are going to
wreck computing if they continue to pount away at companies such as
Microsoft and let companies such as MCI, Worldcom, Sprintnet, etc, get
away with the *real* threat to computing.  Just where does Ellison think
he's going to connect his network computers?

-- 
Copyright 1997           
dk at wco.com                                                             
                                                                          

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me, that if it were not
for ISP's that catered to the needs of the many users in NEED a method of
connecting to the web, then there would be a somewhat limited number of
people that would be out surfing the web, looking at all these
advertisements put up by all these bandwidth hogging, money-hungry gluttons,
now would't  there?


    And as far as "dial up customers aren't worth much", well, if we are not
worth much, then why would someone spend the time, or money, or even
consider the thought of doing any kind of advertising or marketing on the
web?

    If it were not for US being here, would YOU be here?

Something to think about, moron.


--
In the exit of humanity,
Color our world blackened.
Blackened.

In article <68e6iv$p6m$2@news.ncal.verio.com>, dk@removeme.wco.com writes...

> Anti-trust laws were written to benefit the consumer, not to benefit X
> Company's competitors.  Larry Ellison and other blowhards are going to
> wreck computing if they continue to pount away at companies such as
> Microsoft and let companies such as MCI, Worldcom, Sprintnet, etc, get
> away with the *real* threat to computing.  Just where does Ellison think
> he's going to connect his network computers?


In Ellison's case in particular, he seems bent on doing *anything* to put
a chink in Microsoft/Gates armor.  And the network computer thingy happens
to dovetail very well with Oracle's dominance in the database industry.

Nevermind that it's just a rehashed mainframe terminal (the specs for the
network computer even _require_ that the machine be SEALED SHUT), it is
strictly a business decision on their part, I doubt anyone at Oracle 
*really* believes it is in the longterm best interest of the consumer.

Ellison is just another egotistical megalomaniac that can't get over
Bill envy.  While I'm no Microsoft cheerleader, I sincerely doubt that
the world would necessarily be a better place if Larry were in the 
driver's seat.  One of the reasons it makes me very nervous he got a 
place on Apple's board. (and I'm not even an Apple owner or shareholder)



Phil

-- 
Philip J. Koenig             Computers & Communications             [see below]

References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjk29@crl46 . c o m

On 31 Dec 1997 19:31:43 GMT, David Kaye excited 33 billion electrons
with:
>
>While people worry about Microsoft's dominance in operating systems, they
>need to *really* be worried about companies such as Worldcom, MCI,
>Sprintnet, BBN, or whoever's left.  This is the *real* threat.  Why? 

It's an even smaller field already...  BBN is owned by GTE, Worldcom has
agreed to purchase MCI (-and- Compuserve's network and AOL's ANS
subsidiary)....  

(And I agree with your main point)

Art Stone  
--
1,000 new web sites each day: http://kode.net/~artstone/biglist.html

Jayman77 <Mad_Slasher@prodigy.net> wrote:
>     Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me, that if it were not
> for ISP's that catered to the needs of the many users in NEED a method of
> connecting to the web, then there would be a somewhat limited number of
> people that would be out surfing the web, looking at all these
> advertisements put up by all these bandwidth hogging, money-hungry gluttons,
> now would't  there?

You're wrong. ;)

Yet another person who thinks that "Web" == "Internet".  Not true.
The internet was around decades before "the web" existed.  

And I remember when Prodigy, CompuServe and AOL were little more than
large national BBS's.

>     And as far as "dial up customers aren't worth much", well, if we are not
> worth much, then why would someone spend the time, or money, or even
> consider the thought of doing any kind of advertising or marketing on the
> web?

The "real" money is never with individual consumers like you or I.  Think
about it...in the US, most folks would pay around $20/mo for access.  
That's not a lot of money when you begin to think about how much it costs
to run the equipment, the all important connection to the rest of the
world, tech support & technicians to keep it all running.

The "real" money lies in large business transactions.  I see local phone
companies offering dial-up accounts, but at the same time they're offering
ISDN, T1 and higher connections to businesses.  Now if you and a business
have a problem with their account...which do you think the ISP will listen
to first?  You?  You're only worth $20/mo. whereas the business may 
account for 1000s of dollars a month.  Dialup users not worth much?  I'd
say so...

This also applies in many other business sectors as well.

>     If it were not for US being here, would YOU be here?

> Something to think about, moron.

Heh...and those who don't think are the first to speak...

I would highly suggest you check your "America is #1" attitude at the
door and do some research on the history of Computer Science and the 
interenet...  You may be surprised of how many discoveries related to the 
web weren't created by an American - or even within the borders of the 
country.

Doug Jacobs (djacobs@tsoft.com) wrote:

: I would highly suggest you check your "America is #1" attitude at the
: door and do some research on the history of Computer Science and the 
: interenet...  You may be surprised of how many discoveries related to the 
: web weren't created by an American - or even within the borders of the 
: country.

And those would be?

In alt.bbs.internet you wrote:

: : I would highly suggest you check your "America is #1" attitude at the
: : door and do some research on the history of Computer Science and the 
: : interenet...  You may be surprised of how many discoveries related to the 
: : web weren't created by an American - or even within the borders of the 
: : country.

: And those would be?
TCP/IP's predecessor, the first packet switched network. Invented *and*
built in the UK.

-- 
Bernhard van Staveren 	     ----       Mungled headers, addresses below.
home:	madcat(at)superunknown.ml.org   work: staveren(at)xirian.demon.nl
"Linux, WinNT and MS-DOS. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

Philip J. Koenig (For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se) wrote:
: In article <68e6iv$p6m$2@news.ncal.verio.com>, dk@removeme.wco.com writes...
: 
: > Anti-trust laws were written to benefit the consumer, not to benefit X
: > Company's competitors.  Larry Ellison and other blowhards are going to
: > wreck computing if they continue to pount away at companies such as
: > Microsoft and let companies such as MCI, Worldcom, Sprintnet, etc, get
: > away with the *real* threat to computing.  Just where does Ellison think
: > he's going to connect his network computers?
: 
: 
: In Ellison's case in particular, he seems bent on doing *anything* to put
: a chink in Microsoft/Gates armor.  And the network computer thingy happens
: to dovetail very well with Oracle's dominance in the database industry.

Gee, give the guy a break - he lost something like 2.3 BILLION (with a B)
dollars in the stock market this week (in 1 day)... :) 

[snip]

Tony

In alt.bbs.internet you wrote:

:>: And those would be?
:> TCP/IP's predecessor, the first packet switched network. Invented *and*
:> built in the UK.
:> 

: Oh, and do not forget that the www itself was invented at CERN as a way for
: scientists to share documentation.
Wasn't that done by some guy there with too much spare time? =]

-- 
Bernhard van Staveren 	     ----       Mungled headers, addresses below.
home:	madcat(at)superunknown.ml.org   work: staveren(at)xirian.demon.nl
"Linux, WinNT and MS-DOS. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

In article <68gu89$634$1@news.ncal.verio.com>, bfntd@aimnet.com writes...
> Philip J. Koenig (For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se) wrote:

> : In Ellison's case in particular, he seems bent on doing *anything* to put
> : a chink in Microsoft/Gates armor.  And the network computer thingy happens
> : to dovetail very well with Oracle's dominance in the database industry.
> 
> Gee, give the guy a break - he lost something like 2.3 BILLION (with a B)
> dollars in the stock market this week (in 1 day)... :) 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Tony


Yep, am I supposed to feel *sorry* for him? <laugh>  (Actually, I listened
to a transcript of a talk he made the day after that devaluation, and he 
actually *joked* about it.. albeit didn't seem to possess his usual self-
confident pomp)

Oracle's stock price will rise, I'm quite sure of it.  And believe me, Larry
is in no danger of having to take public transit to work, or of losing his
Japanese tea garden, personal jet, yadda yadda...  




Phil

-- 
Philip J. Koenig             Computers & Communications             [see below]

References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjk29@crl46 . c o m

bfntd@aimnet.com (Tony Damon) writes:

> : In Ellison's case in particular, he seems bent on doing *anything* to put
> : a chink in Microsoft/Gates armor.  And the network computer thingy happens
> : to dovetail very well with Oracle's dominance in the database industry.
> 
> Gee, give the guy a break - he lost something like 2.3 BILLION (with a B)
> dollars in the stock market this week (in 1 day)... :) 

	Cry me a river. Think he's gonna start riding the bus to
work, and packing a brown-bag lunch? :)

-jav

wolfgang@whnet.com (Wolfgang Henke) writes:

> It may be helpful to have a list of NSPs who are willing to connect ISPs.
> Here is a *humble* start, just listing the ones which come to my mind
> right now.  I did not list those which are known to not like to sell
> connectivity to ISPs, like for example GTE-BBN, ANS and Netcom.
> 
> If I were an ISP somewhere in the continental US looking right now for 
> more connectivity, I would email Avi Freedman (avi@netaxs.net) or Justin 
> Newton (justin@priori.net) as a good starting point.
> 
> 
> A few NSPs for ISPs (additions welcome!)
> ========================================
> 
>    AGIS
>    Alternet/UUnet/Worldcom/MCI 
>    Best Communications
>    Genuity
>    Mainstreet
>    Netaccess  
>    Priori Networks
>    Sprintlink
>    Verio

	I would add Above.NET, they probably have the best
infrastructure in the business, and excellent peering.

-jav

Philip J. Koenig wrote the quoted material below:
" Oracle's stock price will rise, I'm quite sure of it. 

With a broken Oracle 8?  And they say MS software is buggy.  

-- 
Copyright 1998        In most other countries fireworks displays are used
David Kaye            at midnight to celebrate the start of the newe year
                                                                          

Philip J. Koenig wrote the quoted material below:
" Bill envy.  While I'm no Microsoft cheerleader, I sincerely doubt that
" the world would necessarily be a better place if Larry were in the 
" driver's seat.  One of the reasons it makes me very nervous he got a 
" place on Apple's board. (and I'm not even an Apple owner or shareholder)

Damn.  I should have shorted Apple.  I just knew this was coming.  It was
amusing to see Ellison appointed to Apple's board.  What do the Apple
people do for entertainment, shoot themselves in the feet?  I think it's
cute that MS dropped $130 million on them (preferred stock; no voting
privileges).  This makes MS a creditor rather than an owner.  Clever move. 

Oracle could have been a great company.  I have known several people
there; all have taken their options and gone.  They were alienated by the
company culture.  

-- 
Copyright 1998        "Alde Lang Syne", the New Years song, has nothing 
David Kaye         to do with the new year.  It's just an old folk song
                                                                          

: >While people worry about Microsoft's dominance in operating systems, they
: >need to *really* be worried about companies such as Worldcom, MCI,
: >Sprintnet, BBN, or whoever's left.  This is the *real* threat.  Why? 

: It's an even smaller field already...  BBN is owned by GTE, Worldcom has
: agreed to purchase MCI (-and- Compuserve's network and AOL's ANS
: subsidiary)....  


It may be helpful to have a list of NSPs who are willing to connect ISPs.
Here is a *humble* start, just listing the ones which come to my mind
right now.  I did not list those which are known to not like to sell
connectivity to ISPs, like for example GTE-BBN, ANS and Netcom.

If I were an ISP somewhere in the continental US looking right now for 
more connectivity, I would email Avi Freedman (avi@netaxs.net) or Justin 
Newton (justin@priori.net) as a good starting point.


A few NSPs for ISPs (additions welcome!)
========================================

   AGIS
   Alternet/UUnet/Worldcom/MCI 
   Best Communications
   Genuity
   Mainstreet
   Netaccess  
   Priori Networks
   Sprintlink
   Verio


Happy New Year!
   
Wolfgang


-- 
Wolfgang Henke   wolfgang@whnet.com       .          http://www.whnet.com
WH Networks                              ...       Communication Products 
2672 Bayshore Parkway, Suite 503      ..........           (650) 390-9316
Mountain View, CA 94043           ..................   fax (650) 390-9317

In article <86n2heth0m.fsf@limpia.kjsl.com>, javier@kjsl.com writes...
> wolfgang@whnet.com (Wolfgang Henke) writes:
> 
> > It may be helpful to have a list of NSPs who are willing to connect ISPs.
> > Here is a *humble* start, just listing the ones which come to my mind
> > right now.  I did not list those which are known to not like to sell
> > connectivity to ISPs, like for example GTE-BBN, ANS and Netcom.
> > 
> > If I were an ISP somewhere in the continental US looking right now for 
> > more connectivity, I would email Avi Freedman (avi@netaxs.net) or Justin 
> > Newton (justin@priori.net) as a good starting point.
> > 
> > 
> > A few NSPs for ISPs (additions welcome!)
> > ========================================
> > 
> >    AGIS
> >    Alternet/UUnet/Worldcom/MCI 
> >    Best Communications
> >    Genuity
> >    Mainstreet
> >    Netaccess  
> >    Priori Networks
> >    Sprintlink
> >    Verio
> 
> 	I would add Above.NET, they probably have the best
> infrastructure in the business, and excellent peering.
> 
> -jav


As far as I know, CRL is promoting their "superPOPs" or somesuch as
alternatives to NAPs for ISPs, etc. (goodness knows they don't pay 
much mind to their individual users, one *has* to assume they are 
focusing on the commercial and ISP business, as it appears in their 
literature.. :)



Phil

-- 
Philip J. Koenig             Computers & Communications             [see below]

References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjk29@crl46 . c o m

On 2 Jan 1998 19:20:40 GMT, in ba.internet, David Kaye
<dk@removeme.wco.com> shaped the electrons to say:

>Philip J. Koenig wrote the quoted material below:
>" Oracle's stock price will rise, I'm quite sure of it. 
>
>With a broken Oracle 8?  And they say MS software is buggy.  

Did you see the new James Bond movie, "Tomorrow Never Dies"?  I loved
the line where the chief bad guy asks "Is the new software release
ready?" and his engineering flunky says "Yes, and it's got enough bugs
in it to keep them upgrading for years to come."  Sounds like someone
has been beta testing Win98 :-)


--

My first name has 2 letters,  There's only one letter "J".
My last name's a bit longer,  It just worked out that way.
I hate spam, and UCE, and all that unwanted mess.
So to reply, you have to edit my return address.

Art Stone <artstone@usa.net> wrote in article
<34ade6ee.267947297@news.alt.net>...
> On 31 Dec 1997 19:31:43 GMT, David Kaye excited 33 billion electrons
> with:
> >
> >While people worry about Microsoft's dominance in operating systems,
they
> >need to *really* be worried about companies such as Worldcom, MCI,
> >Sprintnet, BBN, or whoever's left.  This is the *real* threat.  Why? 
> 
> It's an even smaller field already...  BBN is owned by GTE, Worldcom has
> agreed to purchase MCI (-and- Compuserve's network and AOL's ANS
> subsidiary)....  
> 

Actually, AT&T is has allready built its own backbone and is expaning it to
match MCI and UUnet. I do agree that Worldcom is trying to cornert the
market in internet backnbone connectivity, but I think this move will
backfire on them. UUnet priceing is allready very uncompetitive.


> (And I agree with your main point)
> 
> Art Stone  
> --
> 1,000 new web sites each day: http://kode.net/~artstone/biglist.html
> 

 +---- rftech@ibm.net wrote (6 Jan 98 07:36:14 GMT):
 | Actually, AT&T is has allready built its own backbone and is expaning it to
 | match MCI and UUnet. I do agree that Worldcom is trying to cornert the
 | market in internet backnbone connectivity, but I think this move will
 | backfire on them. UUnet priceing is allready very uncompetitive.
 +----

Is anyone familiar with
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/metcalfe/metcalfe.htm">
www.qwest.net</a>?

     Before getting to the long-distance IP telephone services Qwest is
     offering, I've got to mention the company's railroad cars. You see,
     Qwest was started by buying up railroad rights of way. Then, using
     special railroad cars that dig four-foot trenches, Qwest began
     burying conduits and pulling fibers.

     By the middle of 1999, Qwest says that it will have 16,000 miles of
     conduits connecting the 135 cities from which 80 percent of the
     voice and data calls in the United States are originated. These
     conduits initially will carry 48 fibers, each fiber with eight
     wave-division-multiplexing (WDM) "windows," each window running at
     10Gbps in bidirectional, OC-192 Synchronous Optical Network rings.

     Nacchio, who previously headed consumer long-distance telephone
     services at AT&T, says Qwest will bring online more long-distance
     transmission capacity than all of the current IXCs combined, a
     total of two terabits per second. And if that isn't enough, The
     company's conduits can be repulled with additional fibers to hold
     10 times more.

I laughed out loud when I read about the railroad trick.  It
reminded me of that old scam, putting a boat in a wagon and
riding around claiming land.

-- 
Gary Johnson     gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.

In article <slrn6b3qf7.8ed.gjohnson@dream.season.com>, gjohnson@dream.season.com 
writes...
>  +---- rftech@ibm.net wrote (6 Jan 98 07:36:14 GMT):
>  | Actually, AT&T is has allready built its own backbone and is expaning it to
>  | match MCI and UUnet. I do agree that Worldcom is trying to cornert the
>  | market in internet backnbone connectivity, but I think this move will
>  | backfire on them. UUnet priceing is allready very uncompetitive.
>  +----
> 
> Is anyone familiar with
> <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/metcalfe/metcalfe.htm">
> www.qwest.net</a>?


Hm, wasn't Metcalfe the one that predicted the "Internet meltdown" that never 
occurred last year, and had to eat his column?  <laugh>

 
>      Before getting to the long-distance IP telephone services Qwest is
>      offering, I've got to mention the company's railroad cars. You see,
>      Qwest was started by buying up railroad rights of way. Then, using
>      special railroad cars that dig four-foot trenches, Qwest began
>      burying conduits and pulling fibers.


Heh, just like Sprint.  Sprint started out as Southern Pacific Railroad
Internal Telecommunications division.  Those railroad right-of-ways have
turned out to be valuable indeed in the telecom field. :-)



Phil

-- 
Philip J. Koenig             Computers & Communications             [see below]

References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjk29@crl46 . c o m

:In article <01bd1a75$ae313c40$e2152581@johnbian>,
:John Bianco <rftech@ibm.net> wrote:
:>
:..
:>
:>Actually, AT&T is has allready built its own backbone and is expaning it to
:>match MCI and UUnet. I do agree that Worldcom is trying to cornert the

    There are a bunch of players that will be coming out of the woodwork in
    the next year.  AT&T is certainly one.  Worldcomm, even with the MCI 
    aquisition, owns only a tiny percentage of the fiber infrastructure...
    they aren't a threat yet.

    Prices are somewhat high due to the lack of major players at the moment,
    but I can't predict *what* is going to happen with so many darkhorses
    sitting around yet to show their faces.

    At the same time, regional infrastructures are starting to explode.
    For example, here in the bay area we can choose between PacBell, MFS,
    and a number of other infrastructure providers to run physical lines.
    Add in xDSL, cable, and other (darkhorse) players and I see the potential
    for a major infrastructure explosion and price reductions at both the local
    and continental levels.

							-Matt
-- 
    Matthew Dillon   Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
    <dillon@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
    do not under any circumstances send email to joeblow@bigspender.idiom.com
    and, for gods sake, don't email bucktram@popserver.idiom.com

In article <68u0go$l9r$1@flea.best.net>, dillon@best.net (Matt Dillon) wrote:

> :In article <01bd1a75$ae313c40$e2152581@johnbian>,
> :John Bianco <rftech@ibm.net> wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :>Actually, AT&T is has allready built its own backbone and is expaning it to
> :>match MCI and UUnet. I do agree that Worldcom is trying to cornert the
> 
>     There are a bunch of players that will be coming out of the woodwork in
>     the next year.  AT&T is certainly one.  Worldcomm, even with the MCI 
>     aquisition, owns only a tiny percentage of the fiber infrastructure...
>     they aren't a threat yet.

Yes, despite some consolodation, most notably Worldcom (MCI, ANS,
Compuserve, MFS, Brooks Fiber...), the overall trend over the last couple
of years, which is still continuing, is toward _more_ backbone providers,
not fewer. Boardwatch recently listed about 30 nationwide or nearly
nationwide backbones, and noted that there are even more going on line
that they didn't include.


>     At the same time, regional infrastructures are starting to explode.
>     For example, here in the bay area we can choose between PacBell, MFS,
>     and a number of other infrastructure providers to run physical lines.
>     Add in xDSL, cable, and other (darkhorse) players and I see the potential
>     for a major infrastructure explosion and price reductions at both
the local
>     and continental levels.

....................................................

MATTHEW VAUGHAN

matthewv at mindspring dot com (damn spammers...)

http://matthewv.home.mindspring.com/

....................................................

In article <MPG.f1bf752a705e60f9896b4@news.walltech.com>,
For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se  (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:


> >      Before getting to the long-distance IP telephone services Qwest is
> >      offering, I've got to mention the company's railroad cars. You see,
> >      Qwest was started by buying up railroad rights of way. Then, using
> >      special railroad cars that dig four-foot trenches, Qwest began
> >      burying conduits and pulling fibers.
> 
> 
> Heh, just like Sprint.  Sprint started out as Southern Pacific Railroad
> Internal Telecommunications division.  Those railroad right-of-ways have
> turned out to be valuable indeed in the telecom field. :-)


Ah, that's what I heard from someone else, but there is absolutely no
mention of this whatsoever in their history at
http://www.sprint.com:80/sprint/overview/world.html

Am I missing something here? Is this a techie urban legend? Or did they
merge with Brwon Telephone company at some point? Is there some reason
Sprint might not want people to know about this?

....................................................

MATTHEW VAUGHAN

matthewv at mindspring dot com (damn spammers...)

http://matthewv.home.mindspring.com/

....................................................

In article <see-below-0601981838520001@user-36sac8t.dialup.mindspring.com>, see-
below@not-my-address.com writes...
> In article <MPG.f1bf752a705e60f9896b4@news.walltech.com>,
> For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se  (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:
> 
> 
> > >      Before getting to the long-distance IP telephone services Qwest is
> > >      offering, I've got to mention the company's railroad cars. You see,
> > >      Qwest was started by buying up railroad rights of way. Then, using
> > >      special railroad cars that dig four-foot trenches, Qwest began
> > >      burying conduits and pulling fibers.
> > 
> > 
> > Heh, just like Sprint.  Sprint started out as Southern Pacific Railroad
> > Internal Telecommunications division.  Those railroad right-of-ways have
> > turned out to be valuable indeed in the telecom field. :-)
> 
> 
> Ah, that's what I heard from someone else, but there is absolutely no
> mention of this whatsoever in their history at
> http://www.sprint.com:80/sprint/overview/world.html
> 
> Am I missing something here? Is this a techie urban legend? Or did they
> merge with Brwon Telephone company at some point? Is there some reason
> Sprint might not want people to know about this?
 

Well, if I were a marketing dweeb I suppose I wouldn't think being born
of a 19th century railroad heritage would be a very impressive credential
for a company trying to establish itself as a leader in the optical/
digital age.

Corporate imagemaking what it is today, the fact that Sprint downplays
their beginnings comes as no surprise whatsoever to me.




Phil

-- 
Philip J. Koenig             Computers & Communications             [see below]

References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjk29@crl46 . c o m

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 20:32:45 -0800, For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se
(Philip J. Koenig) wrote:

...

>Nevermind that it's just a rehashed mainframe terminal (the specs for the
>network computer even _require_ that the machine be SEALED SHUT), it is
>strictly a business decision on their part, I doubt anyone at Oracle 
>*really* believes it is in the longterm best interest of the consumer.

When IBM came into the local OS/2 user's group and explained the
network computer, I too said this is just a rehashed mainframe
terminal (abet with some major advantages).

Then I got a contract working in the technology roll-out/maint group
of a major corporation and saw just how hard it was to maintain a
network of, in their case, NT Workstations.  The network computer
would make their job a LOT easier.  And the average user wouldn't have
cared that his PC was now just a fancy TTY... it would have been up
more and more easily configured and maintained.

>Ellison is just another egotistical megalomaniac that can't get over
>Bill envy.  While I'm no Microsoft cheerleader, I sincerely doubt that
>the world would necessarily be a better place if Larry were in the 
>driver's seat.  

That is precisely why we have anti-trust laws in the USofA... it is
almost never in the collective interest to have an individual
megalomaniac controlling important markets no matter who the
megalomaniac is.



--
 A/~~\A  Jim Ebright    NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/
((0  0))_______ Spam,eggs,sausage,and Spam. That's not got much...
  \  /COWlumbus\"True peace is not merely the absence of tension: It 
  (--)\  Ahia  | is the presence of justice," Martin Luther King,Jr.

In article <34b4a0d4.53362574@news.coil.com>, ebright@coil.com wrote:

>>Ellison is just another egotistical megalomaniac that can't get over
>>Bill envy.  While I'm no Microsoft cheerleader, I sincerely doubt that
>>the world would necessarily be a better place if Larry were in the 
>>driver's seat.  
>
>That is precisely why we have anti-trust laws in the USofA...

Can you name an example where they've been effective? BTW, I do
mean anti-trust rather than other illegal activites covered by 
other laws (cartels, price rigging etc).

I can't actually think of one!

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:40:16 -0800, For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se
(Philip J. Koenig) wrote:

>Corporate imagemaking what it is today, the fact that Sprint downplays
>their beginnings comes as no surprise whatsoever to me.
>
I dunno...what about being in at the start of data transmission andstill
at the forefront :-)

-- 
Bob.
Installing new software is merely a state of mind.
Total Paranoia!

Wolfgang Henke wrote:
> 
> Further elucidation of this topic is available in this weeks Infoworld:
> 
> http://www.infoworld.com   ->Opinions   ->From The Ether
> 
> Bob Metcalfe cites Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio (formerly of AT&T) that Qwest
> will bring online more long-distance capacity than all current IXCs
> capacity combined, a total of two terabits per second.  They are using
> SONET fiber rings with 48 fibers per conduit,  each fiber with eight
> WDM windows, each window running at OC-192c (about 10 Gbps) bi-directional,
> which comes out to a nominal rate of 3818.2 Gbps.
> 
> AGIS is rumored to be one of the first ISPs to avail itself to some of
> this capacity.
> 
> Enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of fiber^H^H^H^H^Hhappiness,
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
>

 ITs ashame that AGIS is the one useing this capacity, ashame indeed.
Hopefully Qwest will sell capacity to more worthy backbone providers.

Further elucidation of this topic is available in this weeks Infoworld:

http://www.infoworld.com   ->Opinions   ->From The Ether

Bob Metcalfe cites Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio (formerly of AT&T) that Qwest
will bring online more long-distance capacity than all current IXCs
capacity combined, a total of two terabits per second.  They are using 
SONET fiber rings with 48 fibers per conduit,  each fiber with eight 
WDM windows, each window running at OC-192c (about 10 Gbps) bi-directional, 
which comes out to a nominal rate of 3818.2 Gbps. 

AGIS is rumored to be one of the first ISPs to avail itself to some of
this capacity.

Enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of fiber^H^H^H^H^Hhappiness,

Wolfgang


-- 
Wolfgang Henke   wolfgang@whnet.com       .          http://www.whnet.com
WH Networks                              ...       Communication Products 
2672 Bayshore Parkway, Suite 503      ..........           (650) 390-9316
Mountain View, CA 94043           ..................   fax (650) 390-9317

In article <see-below-0601981838520001@user-36sac8t.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Matthew Vaughan <see-below@not-my-address.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.f1bf752a705e60f9896b4@news.walltech.com>,
>For_Email@ddress.see-below.plea.se  (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:
>
>> Heh, just like Sprint.  Sprint started out as Southern Pacific Railroad
>> Internal Telecommunications division.  Those railroad right-of-ways have
>> turned out to be valuable indeed in the telecom field. :-)
>
>Ah, that's what I heard from someone else, but there is absolutely no
>mention of this whatsoever in their history at
>http://www.sprint.com:80/sprint/overview/world.html

That person was probably me.. 
I remember Sprint as a alternative long distance service offered by
Southern Pacific in the early 80's.. it was similar to MCI in that you
dialed a local POP, entered your access code and number, and went from 
there.. I think the original network was excess capacity on their 
microwave PBX network.. 

I also came across a reverse reference in a book about the Southern
Pacific Railroad..

>
>Am I missing something here? Is this a techie urban legend? Or did they
>merge with Brwon Telephone company at some point? Is there some reason
>Sprint might not want people to know about this?

It looks to me as if they are showing the history of the (now) parent
company.. which bought the old Sprint from GTE, who bought it from SP.

>MATTHEW VAUGHAN
>
>matthewv at mindspring dot com (damn spammers...)
>
>http://matthewv.home.mindspring.com/

(yes)
-- 
               -- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan  | techie@w6yx.stanford.edu | kc6sxc@w6yx.ampr.org
             | techie@tantivy.net	| KC6SXC@W6YX.#NCA.CA.USA.NOAM
	     | P.O. Box 9792, Stanford, Ca 94309-9792
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --