🚀 go-pugleaf

cjwoods@angus.gigotech.net (Chris Woods) wrote:

[SNIP]

>busies. With 10,000 customers  at one ISP, a  20:1 ratio worked well. It is
>completely  unrealistic   to promise "never  a busy"   to  the customers; a
>provider must   analyze what level of  busies  is intolerable,  and operate
>above that. For  example, I  personally  consider it reasonable  to have to
>redial 5 times to get online. 

I will *NOT* PAY to listen to busy signals.  I can hear busy tone for
free just by dialing my own number. The method works well. Try it for
yourself sometime.  No extra charge. Southwestern Bell is most
accomodating in that regard.

I agree that it's a sliding scale for the modem-to-user ratio. The
larger your customer base, the higher ratios can be supported.  You do
not have to provide 1:1 subscriber-to-modem ratios to avoid the dreaded
"all ports busy" situation, but with 30 subscribers I can assure you
that 10 modems are not enough.  By contrast, with 300 subscribers, 100
modems are a few too many.  With 3000 subscribers, 300 modems may well
suffice, but you've got to monitor the system loading and be prepared to
adjust your user-to-modem ratios as system loading dictates. A loaded
system is a profitable system.  A system with 50% of the modems sitting
idle is probably losing money.  A system with frequent all-ports-busy is
probably about to start losing money.

Sell a product you cannot deliver and your customer will take his money
elsewhere.



+-----------------------------------------------|
| Do Not Walk In Front Of Me.I Will Not Follow. |
| And Do Not Walk Behind Me, I cannot Lead You. |
| Please Just Walk Beside Me and Be My Friend.  |
+-----------------------------------------------+