🚀 go-pugleaf

In <317fa819.45655076@news.enteract.com>, jlandess@enteract.com (Josh Landess) writes:
>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.

keep an eye on the clarinet telecom groups, and check out www.fcc.gov
where they even have a daily mailing list of fcc activity.

>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.

One suggestion being made is to increase the line cost by a few dollars a month,
and get rid of the per minute charges for the local network.  This would drop
LD rates dramatically.

>
>
>
>>(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


                                                           -john