🚀 go-pugleaf

To: Larry Rosenman - CyberRamp System Administration

Larry, I've been checking into ISDN and I'm very puzzled by something.
Perhaps you can explain the justifications and rationales to me. 

I've seen the Cyberramp and other ISP equipment rooms on several occasions.
As it has been explained to me ISP's such as Cyberramp already have made
the equipment investment to bring fiber connectivity into their sites. In
fact, the telcos damn near require it in order to support the bandwidths
you use.

You already have fiber coming in and have, as stated on the system status
page, added more PRI (which are ISDN by definition) interfaces. This tells
me that ISP's have the equipment in place that is virtually all ISDN-based
to begin with.

When I make an analog modem call at 28.8kbps or 33.6kbps (btw, I have not
gotten a clean, reliable 33.6 connect in months) into Cyberramp, I am call
into an ISDN line (please correct me if I'm wrong). In so doing, I am using
a single B channel of an ISDN line. For this I am paying $9.95 per month
prepaid annually.

If I had an ISDN line and ISDN terminal adapter on my end and I placed a
call to Cyberramp using a single B channel, I would be utilizing no more
bandwidth or use of Cyberramp resources than I use with my analog call. Why
then is a single B channel connection billed at $19.95 per month prepaid
annually? In essence 2 times the rate for an analog connect.

Likewise, why is a 2 B channel connect billed at $29.95 per month prepaid
annually? Realistically, 3 times the rate for an analog connect.

It would seem to me that with more and more equipment going to the digital
realm in the consumers hands, and being as the equipment on your end is
digital already, that in the long run it will cost more to support analog
connects than digital connects. Likewise, the end-user such as myself
having more affordable access to higher bandwidth would speed up the
transfers I would be making, thus taking a load off of your equipment.

Therefore, it seems to me that the general practice of charging higher
rates for access to higher bandwidth, that in reality is being used for
analog calls anyway, is nothing more than a form of profiteering in an
uneducated climate where the public at large is allowing this to happen.
Thus, something of a "because we can" attitude prevails.

ISDN is a 30 year old technology that is only now being pushed in this
country because of Internet activity. More 90% of European businesses and
good number of private citizens have had ISDN for a long time. It's just
now become "profitable" for US telcos to support the service. Many people
feel that ISDN is also short lived with the advent of ADSL and other higher
bandwidth protocols lurking on the horizon.

Why then should we have to 2 to 3 times more for access to digital higher
bandwidth using a 30 year old technology that is already in place and in
use supporting the lower bandwidth analog modems. I am the one making a new
equipment investment to access what already exists on your end. I am not
going to be placing any more of a load on your systems than I do currently,
unless I make a 2 B channel call (for which I would gladly pay more than a
1 B channel call). My business would be transacted faster and thus I would
not tie up your system or your uplink resources for as long it would take
for a slower analog call. In fact, with faster speeds, I'd be off the net
faster and get more done. If more people would take a digital approach,
then to folks who are complaining about the Internet being so bogged down
and slow would not have a leg to stand on.

I will post this out as an open letter for comment from the general public
as well. I look forward to your response.

	Tom Jeffrey
	raster@cyberramp.net