🚀 go-pugleaf

On 25 Apr 1996 15:06:59 GMT, jhines@mcs.net wrote:

>Aggregate bandwidth is doubling every year, which is faster than CPU
>power has been increasing.  Yes, right now there may be growing
>pains, but there will be capacity shortly.

Well, we'll see.

>> I do not want to pay higher prices but am trying to remain cognizant
>>of the forces at work.
>
>The FCC is also considering motions to eliminate per minute charges,
>and restructure the entire telecommunications cost structure over to the
>same basis as the 'net.

Sounds good.  I haven't heard of this but I'll take your word for it.
But I also feel: when it's signed in ink, then I'll believe they're
serious.  I have about as much confidence in this happening as I
believe the SEC will codify that market makers publish the bids of
their customers on the national system.

At present, the maximum rate I generally pay in the US is about 9.9
cents per minute.  The damn really has burst somewhat recently on
long-distance charges, but not enough to offer me anything close to an
alternative to my net stuff.  (I.e., for example: telnetting to a free
bbs in California, or visiting their web page, for the fee I pay my
ISP, vs. calling them at 9 cents per minute.  The choice is still
obvious.



>(original article)
>>>this will DEFINE the new demand curve, and
>>>cause those increases and cuts.  Whereas those who shop around for the
>>>best deal benefit not only themselves, but all other consumers as well,
>>>by rewarding good companies for good service.
>
>Any time there is a change in the cost structure, there is a change in the
>demand curve, as people adjust their habits to fit their budgets. If competitive
>market forces are held in check by regulatory restrictions, thats what causes
>the capacity crunches.
>
>                                                           -john

That is very very true, John.  In this particular case, I'd like to
point out that it's pretty complicated as to what has and has not been
held in check.  There have been a myriad of forces at work for several
decades including the technical difficulty of accessing the net for
non-techies, the laying of bandwidth for decades with little usage,
then opening it up, recent progress in using the net for voice and, I
think, eventually, using the net to call anywhere and not just your
fellow surfer.

Well, if the FCC is considering banning the i-phone, I don't know. But
I do know I haven't formulated an opinion overall as to where this is
going.  My thoughts, at present, are:

1.  If analog is inferior to digital in nearly all ways, then I think
it is safe to assume that virtually every activity involving
communication and information will be digital in the future.
2.  In telecommunications I think this means a market struggle for
bandwidth, plain and simple.
3.  Could there be any rational justification for relegating some
bandwidths and networks to particular forms of communication (say, for
example).   Well, if EVERYTHING is just digital ones and zeroes, then
I don't know that this would make much sense.  It might be true that
particular forms of communication (voice/video) require a great amount
of bandwith while others (e-mail) require less (generally).  It might
be true that, if and when someone finally invents an i-phone that is
true call-anywhere, that the net will become swamped and unusable for
virtually all activities.  After all, if you can drop your phone bills
from $500 per month to $30 per month, wouldn't you use such a phone to
the exclusion of your old phone?
4.   A couple of months ago I did read a story of some astronomers who
had had a difficult time getting info from and to a site because the
net had slowed down a little recently.  This story made an impression
on me, to some slight degree.  The user of the past did run into the
fact that net usage/net capacity has increased.


Well, those are my thoughts for now.


Josh