🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Pine.GUL.3.95.961024202749.24299C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Rich Graves <llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU> writes:

>BY HOWARD BRYANT
>Mercury News Staff Writer

>But rather than being a sign of imminent collapse, critics called Pac
>Bell's startling statistic a trumped-up charge designed to scare the
>public and pressure federal regulators into ending a price break
>Internet service providers enjoy when tying into Pac Bell's network.

There is no such price break.  ISPs pay business rates for business
lines.  The journalist who wrote the article must have looked in some
very strange place to find a *critic* of PacBell who agreed
(erroneously) that ISPs enjoy a price break.

>In 1983, the Federal Communications Commission gave
>companies that offered Internet services, and other ''enhanced service
>providers,'' an exemption from the per-minute fees that other
>companies, such as long-distance telephone companies, pay to use Pac
>Bell's network.

This is not true.  ISPs pay tariffed business rates for tariffed business
lines, like anybody else does.  They are not getting any special price
break.

The per-minute fees imposed on long-distance telephone companies are not
for receiving calls.  These fees are applied to a long-distance company
when it completes a long-distance connection between two central
offices.  This is a totally different tariff from the business line
tariff.

The access charge paid by long-distance companies is purely a mechanism
for making long-distance charges subsidize local service.  It's
deceptive to claim that long-distance companies are paying PacBell for
using PacBell's network.

I'm shocked that a Mercury News writer is using such inaccurate and
misleading language, apparently without fully understanding the issues.

Proposals to make ISPs pay per-minute charges to PacBell are simply a
sneaky way of billing residential users indirectly for the outgoing
calls they make.  It's politically hard to directly impose
per-minute charges on residential users who have flat rate service,
so telephone companies want to do it indirectly, by charging them through
their ISPs.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
   I have this idea for a new toy called a 'Journalist-in-a-Box'.  When
   you open the box it pops up and yells 'Child pornography!'.

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:42:01 -0700, Rich Graves
<llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

>As many as one of every six telephone calls in Silicon Valley now
>doesn't go through on the first try because Internet denizens are
>tying up the lines, Pacific Bell reported Wednesday.
>

That sounds like *total* BS to me-  I live in Sunnyvale and work in
San Jose, and I can't ever recall having had a call not "go through on
the first try!"  Either I'm lucky or somebody's exagerating....hmmmm


---------
Danny Burkes
Sunnyvale CA USA

"Stand aside!  Do you want to be KILLED?!"
     - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

In article <54pmaf$am9@samba.rahul.net>, Rahul Dhesi  <dhesi@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>The per-minute fees imposed on long-distance telephone companies are not
>for receiving calls.  These fees are applied to a long-distance company
>when it completes a long-distance connection between two central
>offices.  This is a totally different tariff from the business line
>tariff.

Do you know this to be a fact?  I was led to believe that IECs have to pay 
per-minute fees for both the receipt of the phone call *and* completion of 
the phone call.  It makes some amount of sense to me - the IEC is using the 
LECs infrastructure in both cases, so, for example, if PacBell sources the 
call and Bell Atlantic completes it, then the IEC should pay both companies 
for use of their resources.

By the way, Bell Atlantic completed a study earlier this year which basically 
provides hard evidence of the load ISPs are imposing on their system (which 
was engineered with a different set of use patterns in mind).  You can read 
the report at:  http://www.ba.com/ea/fcc/report.htm

mb
-- 
Mark Boolootian 
booloo@cats.ucsc.edu

In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.961024202749.24299C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>, Rich Graves <llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

>As many as one of every six telephone calls in Silicon Valley now
>doesn't go through on the first try because Internet denizens are
>tying up the lines, Pacific Bell reported Wednesday.
>
>Under normal circumstances, less than 1 percent of calls go
>uncompleted, the company said. The situation is so dire that
>California's entire phone system is in danger of breakdown, a company
>executive said, with Silicon Valley especially on red alert.

This seems to be the height of hypocracy considering the fact
that Pac Bell is simultaneously boasting about the success of
their own ISP start-up.

Or, is Pac Bell (the Telco) saying that they cannot meet the needs
of their own ISP subsidiary? 

Or, are they telling their stockholders that their market is
growing at such a phenominal rate that they are not competant
to service it?

Sheesh ....

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

Daniel Burkes wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:42:01 -0700, Rich Graves
> <llurch@Networking.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> 
> >As many as one of every six telephone calls in Silicon Valley now
> >doesn't go through on the first try because Internet denizens are
> >tying up the lines, Pacific Bell reported Wednesday.
> 
> That sounds like *total* BS to me-  I live in Sunnyvale and work in
> San Jose, and I can't ever recall having had a call not "go through on
> the first try!"  Either I'm lucky or somebody's exagerating....hmmmm

Hmmm this ... try out of Santa Clara bucko ... they are not making this
up ... and it
isn't only PacBell ...

So flat rate unlimited internet access is going to "meltdown" the telephone
system?  

I guess that is why PacBell sent me an ad in yesterday's mail that says
on the back of the envelope, "Get up to 5 months free UNLIMITED [emphasis
theirs] access to the Internet."

Maybe they just want to drive the other ISPs out of business.
-- 
If we listened to our intellect, we'd never have a love affair.  We'd
never have a friendship.  We'd never go into business, because we'd be
cynical.  You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings
on the way down.
                              -Ray Bradbury

I think it's rather unbusinesslike for PacBell to blame its
customers for service problems within their system.   They
should just fix their system so that it can handle whatever
service demands their customers make.

What's more, they know that if they move away from unmetered
residential service, they will lose lots of customers.... so
they're reduced to whining and finger-pointing.

Finally, there's no evidence they're actually losing any money
as a result of this problem... if there is a problem... that
hasn't even been demonstrated.

Steve

milo@netcom.com (Milo) wrote:

>Maybe they [the telcos] just want to drive the other ISPs out of business.

Give this man a seegar!

Yep, after sitting on the fence while ISPs big and small set up shop, now
the telcos want in on the action. The noise they're making is just that,
noise.

Wait until Internet phone gets popular. We should be hearing some blood-
curdling screams then.

spp@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Pope) wrote:

>What's more, they know that if they move away from unmetered
>residential service, they will lose lots of customers.... so
>they're reduced to whining and finger-pointing.

I think that's why they want to raise rates on ISPs, so that ISPs pass
along the costs to their users. Under this scenario, they collect, and its
the ISP who gets to face the music.

In ba.internet Milo <milo@netcom.com> wrote:
: Maybe they just want to drive the other ISPs out of business.

"Maybe"?

-- 
Paul Theodoropoulos      admin@wco.com
Vice President
West Coast Online, Inc.

		As Always, The Nicest Guy on the Internet

In <32727F4B.2854@pacbell.net> Black Lodge Engineering <ble@pacbell.net> writes:

>There is no "blame" being
>pointed out, just explanations and possible solutions.

Statements that claim that ISPs operate under some sepcial exemption, or
that long-distance carriers pay per-minute charges for using the local
phone company's network, are clearly designed to deceive, not explain.
A proper explanation from the telco would go roughly like this:

    "Long-distance carriers pay per-minute rates as a subsidy to local
     telephone companies.  ISPs pay standard business rates for
     receiving calls like any other business, and get the benefit of no
     special tariffs.  Any claims to the contrary are totally false.
     
    "The telco would like to phase out flat-rate residential service,
     but this is politically difficult.  Therefore it would like to
     indirectly bill residential users for usage, through their ISPs.
     When telephone users read its propaganda they will believe that it
     has simply taken away the (non-existent) "special exemption" from
     their ISPs.  They will not realize that their flat-rate residential
     service is being taken away from them in a sneaky manner."
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
   I have this idea for a new toy called a 'Journalist-in-a-Box'.  When
   you open the box it pops up and yells 'Child pornography!'.

In <54pmaf$am9@samba.rahul.net>, Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net> writes:

>There is no such price break.  ISPs pay business rates for business
>lines.  The journalist who wrote the article must have looked in some
>very strange place to find a *critic* of PacBell who agreed
>(erroneously) that ISPs enjoy a price break.

In "very strange places" like FCC tariffs and Notices of Proposed 
Rulemaking.  Does the phrase "modem tax" ring any bells?

>>In 1983, the Federal Communications Commission gave
>>companies that offered Internet services, and other ''enhanced service
>>providers,'' an exemption from the per-minute fees that other
>>companies, such as long-distance telephone companies, pay to use Pac
>>Bell's network.
>
>This is not true.  

As a matter of fact,  it is.  Companies like CompuServe,  Tymnet,  and 
others wangled themselves an exemption from the fees imposed on others who 
used the local PSTN as a "gateway" to their long-haul networks.  The only 
inaccuracy is that there was no one in that group that I know of providing 
ISP services at that time.

>Proposals to make ISPs pay per-minute charges to PacBell are simply a
>sneaky way of billing residential users indirectly for the outgoing
>calls they make.  It's politically hard to directly impose
>per-minute charges on residential users who have flat rate service,
>so telephone companies want to do it indirectly, by charging them through
>their ISPs.

Yup.  Otoh,  it's a fact that most of us using the net do consume more 
local telco resources than the typical residential customer.  While I'm a 
little leery (to put it mildly) of PacBell's rather hysterical claims, 
this is a genuine issue that does merit serious discussion.

Ran

Steve Pope (spp@ozark.EECS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: I think it's rather unbusinesslike for PacBell to blame its
: customers for service problems within their system.   They
: should just fix their system so that it can handle whatever
: service demands their customers make.

Fixing their network costs money, and that makes their bottom line look
worse, causing their stock price to drop causing investors to complain
(or sue if 211 passes...)  They have a very inflated stock price and thye
need to have inflated earnings to keep their stock holders happy.

: What's more, they know that if they move away from unmetered
: residential service, they will lose lots of customers.... so
: they're reduced to whining and finger-pointing.

to who?  the provision in the telco bill to allow access to the network is
(surprise) hung up in court over the provisions dictating charges.  So,
for the next year or so, there's nowhere to go...

: Finally, there's no evidence they're actually losing any money
: as a result of this problem... if there is a problem... that
: hasn't even been demonstrated.

I don't think losing money is the issue.  Face it:  they do away with the
unmetered local calling, hit people up for Internet access and increase
their revenues, then a few bucks goes back into improving the system and a
huge chunk goes back to investors...not to mention a kickback going to the
directors in the form of "stock options"... 

Of course, that's probably a bit nasty.  After all, they are the entity
that spawned Dilbert...

cde

--
Carl D. Emery                 Another being in search of a Perfect Latte...
cde@cpenguin.com                           Web page:  http://www.best.com/~cde
cde@best.com                         Insert your favorite stupid quote here...