🚀 go-pugleaf

very well put mark.


In article <4b771c$4ln@skipper.netrail.net>, mcasey@netrail.net (Mark
Casey) wrote:

*fbauer@access1.digex.net (Fred Bauer) wrote:
*>>
*>>So what you're really saying is that Digex is trying to fit their BIG trucks 
*>>down one of BAs little roads designed for smaller trucks because some
obsolete 
*>>tariff says they can. And now they are complaining about the road builder 
*>>because the tires of their trucks keep falling off the edge of the road 
*>>resulting in alot of flat tires, ultimately limiting their ability to
deliver 
*>>the furniture in a single day. 
*
*>No, this is not at all accurate.  The only way to provide Dial-up service is
*>on Dial-up phone lines.  If you want guaranteed bandwidth, then you need to
*>but a Leased or Frame Relay service.  The comparison is just not valid,
because
*>those other "Roads" are not accessable to a dial-up user.
*
*I was under the impression that Digiex was backhauling traffic between
*wire centers on voice grade FX circuits. I was wrong and shouldn't
*have pointed the finger at Digex, but I would still dispute any
*argument against my analogy.  The "bigger roads" are available to the
*residential (dial-up?) user (switched 56, ISDN, etc), they're just
*more expensive.
*
*Theoretically, the real problem here is the development and
*advancement of analog modem technology. It seems as if we're up
*against the bandwidth limits of what's capable via analog POTS
*circuits, and to be fair, I don't think that's Digex's or Bell
*Atlantic's fault. Clearly, BA (or any new competitor to the market) is
*not going to install new miles of copper (probably obsolete beyond
*analog 28.8 anyway) to serve ever increasing bandwith requirements --
*that would be rediculous. So I'd have to argue that the previous
*analogy holds, but actually applies to us as end users rather than
*Digex, as the ones who are trying to force BIG trucks down little
*roads.
*
*So the underlying gripe is really one of price and who should pay. As
*technology has evolved, we as residential users have become accustomed
*to using low cost voice grade service as a means for low cost, low
*speed data transmission (which it was apparently never designed for).
*From now on, if *we* users want increased bandwith (access to the
*bigger roads), I guess we'll have to start paying our fair share for
*it in the form of data circuits and data transmission equipment. The
*alternative of course is to live with the existing speed limitations
*and complain, complain, complain.
*
*I guess the only  ones left to point the finger at are the modem
*manufacturers, they new the limitations, didn't they?
*
*Only my opinion...
*
*Mark