Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bell Atlantic replies!

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Annie Keitz

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

Got this personal e-mail from Bell Atlantic in response to the postings I
made to his.internet.users and dc.general:
------------------------------------------------------

Annie --

I couldn't help writing after reading your message below, and I' hope
you'll post this note wherever you sent the one I saw.

First of all, Bell Atlantic is not proposing that ISPs pay the same access
fees as long distance companies pay now. Indeed we think that would not
happen whether we proposed it or not. What, if anything, ISPs should pay
is up to policy makers to decide.

However, we did do a study of the impact of ISP use of the network and that
study is posted on our web site (http://www.ba.com) for the Net community
to read. We believe the study shows that (a) ISPs are responsible for )and
in fact make their money by) carrying a great increase in telephone network
traffic and (b) because of the fact that much of that traffic comes to them
from residential phones and because of current telephone tariffs, they pay
relatively little to use the telephone network.

Those are the facts. We presented them to the FCC without recommendations
except that the issue be considered in the forthcoming access charge
proceeding. As you may know, the Commission is expected to sharply cut the
access fees long distance carriers pay.

The Commission may decide that ISPs should continue to be exempt from
charges others pay. That means the rest of us will continue to cover the
costs of the extra equipment and trunks needed to carry ISP traffic. Or
the FCC could decided that ISPs are no long struggling start up businesses,
and it is now time to end the exemption they received in the early 1980s.

By the way, whatever the outcome, Bell Atlantic's ISP business will pay the
same rates and fees as everyone else -- just as it does today.

Eric
------------------------------
Annie,
Annandale, VA USA
ke...@his.com


George Berger

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50l0n8$s...@news2.his.com>, ke...@his.com (Annie Keitz) wrote:

We believe the study shows that (a) ISPs are responsible for )and
> in fact make their money by) carrying a great increase in telephone network
> traffic and (b) because of the fact that much of that traffic comes to them
> from residential phones and because of current telephone tariffs, they pay
> relatively little to use the telephone network.
>
> Those are the facts. We presented them to the FCC without recommendations

Annie -

You're forgetting one small fact; viz., that "we" pay Bell Atlantic for
connection to his.com. BA not only profits from our connections to
his.com, but also profits from his.com's connectivity.

Okay - - I am charged $20 for my conectivity from his.com to the Internet.
I'm also charged about $38 per month for my conectivity to his.com.

Annie, you can't have it both ways. Think about it.

George

--
George Berger
gbe...@his.com

Paul Heller

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <gberger-0409...@gberger.his.com>, gbe...@his.com
(George Berger) wrote:

> You're forgetting one small fact; viz., that "we" pay Bell Atlantic for
> connection to his.com. BA not only profits from our connections to
> his.com, but also profits from his.com's connectivity.
>
> Okay - - I am charged $20 for my conectivity from his.com to the Internet.
> I'm also charged about $38 per month for my conectivity to his.com.

... and his.com pays the full commercial rate for every one of our
half-a-thousand phone lines. We get no quantity break, and have had to
pay for 'facilities' to handle this many lines because our C.O. didn't
have them and if we wanted them, way had to buy 'em.

Harumph. B.A. wants it both ways - they want our money to have the lines
that people can call, and they want your money when you call. And they've
got a monopoly - there are no competitors to turn to if we don't like the
deal or the treatment we're getting. Seems to me that it's high time for
*that* sweet setup to change ...

Annie Keitz

unread,
Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96
to

gbe...@his.com (George Berger) wrote:
>In article <50l0n8$s...@news2.his.com>, ke...@his.com (Annie Keitz) wrote:
>We believe the study shows that (a) ISPs are responsible for )and
>> in fact make their money by) carrying a great increase in telephone network
>> traffic and (b) because of the fact that much of that traffic comes to them
>> from residential phones and because of current telephone tariffs, they pay
>> relatively little to use the telephone network.
>>
>> Those are the facts. We presented them to the FCC without recommendations

>Annie -

>You're forgetting one small fact; viz., that "we" pay Bell Atlantic for


>connection to his.com. BA not only profits from our connections to
>his.com, but also profits from his.com's connectivity.

>Okay - - I am charged $20 for my conectivity from his.com to the Internet.
>I'm also charged about $38 per month for my conectivity to his.com.

>Annie, you can't have it both ways. Think about it.

I didn't say that, I'm only posting verbum what Eric at Bell Atlantic
privately e-mailed to me and requested that I post to the newsgroups where
I had posted my heads up about Bell Atlantic's wishes according to the
Washington Post. Perhaps I didn't make that clear from my posting. I
personally trust Bell Atlantic only as far as I can throw them <g>....

Then again there will soon be alot of folks with motives wanting to get a
piece of the action like the cable companies and the biggies like
Microsoft, so we'll see what happens. My only hope is that consumers of
the internet speak up so their voices are heard and they get a fair shake!

Brian Carner

unread,
Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96
to

Annie Keitz (ke...@his.com) wrote:
: Got this personal e-mail from Bell Atlantic in response to the postings I

: made to his.internet.users and dc.general:
: ------------------------------------------------------

: However, we did do a study of the impact of ISP use of the network and that


: study is posted on our web site (http://www.ba.com) for the Net community

: to read. We believe the study shows that (a) ISPs are responsible for )and


: in fact make their money by) carrying a great increase in telephone network
: traffic and (b) because of the fact that much of that traffic comes to them
: from residential phones and because of current telephone tariffs, they pay
: relatively little to use the telephone network.

We pay the same rates that every other commercial enterprise pays in the area. The biggest difference
is that we don't do any OUTGOING calls. We also pay alot of money for our own connectivity to the internet,
as well as incurring local loop (mileage) charges to pull high capacity lines into our shops. Bell
Atlantic is simply trying to force the smaller ISP's out of business by raising the rates up so high that
they can't pay their bills. This simply removes some of their competition and allows them to move
in and monopolize yet another industry. In most cricles this is called whining I believe.. <g>

: The Commission may decide that ISPs should continue to be exempt from


: charges others pay. That means the rest of us will continue to cover the
: costs of the extra equipment and trunks needed to carry ISP traffic. Or
: the FCC could decided that ISPs are no long struggling start up businesses,
: and it is now time to end the exemption they received in the early 1980s.

: By the way, whatever the outcome, Bell Atlantic's ISP business will pay the
: same rates and fees as everyone else -- just as it does today.

Yea, Yea, Yea.. with the money they're robbing from everyone elses pockets..

Brian

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carner, General Manager Internet: br...@min.net
MetroNet Internet Services, LLC br...@mbbs.com
210 North Charles Street, Suite 1423 Office: (410) 246-9111
Baltimore, MD, USA, 21201 Fax: (410) 246-9110
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kendall P. Bullen

unread,
Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96
to

In article <50l0n8$s...@news2.his.com>, Bell Atlantic wrote:

>By the way, whatever the outcome, Bell Atlantic's ISP business will pay the
>same rates and fees as everyone else -- just as it does today.

Oh boy, they'll pay themselves the same fees? Well, glad to know they're
not getting off scott-free. Gee, if I paid myself $5, the net result
would be . . . hmm, no change in how much I had. Hmmness. . . .

Kendall

--
Kendall P. Bullen ken...@his.com or kbu...@tax.org
. . . take your pick!

Kendall P. Bullen

unread,
Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96
to

In article <gberger-0409...@gberger.his.com>, gbe...@his.com
(George Berger) wrote:

>Annie, you can't have it both ways. Think about it.

Um, she didn't write that -- she was forwarding a note from someone at
Bell Atlantic. Read the whole message. . . .

KPB

Kendall P. Bullen

unread,
Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96
to

In article <ph-040996...@news.his.com>, p...@his.com (Paul Heller) wrote:

>Harumph. B.A. wants it both ways - they want our money to have the lines
>that people can call, and they want your money when you call. And they've
>got a monopoly - there are no competitors to turn to if we don't like the
>deal or the treatment we're getting. Seems to me that it's high time for
>*that* sweet setup to change ...

Though this will change -- Jones Intercable (I think they're called Jones
Communications) will one day (yeah, I know, *when*?!) be offereing a
sweet-sounding phone+cable combination (I think there's Internet in them
thar hills too). They've got two buildings supplied like this as testbeds
or whatever.

Of course, I'm not sure that I like getting phone service from the cable
company, but if the combination of cable+phone from Jones will be cheaper
than the combination of cables/Jones and phones/B.A. (and it will be,
according to the prices they're touting), then I'd buy it. I (like
everyone else, methinks ;) would love to tell B.A. where to go. . . .

Kendall

bell-t...@funny.com

unread,
Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96
to

In article <kendall-0509...@news.his.com>, <ken...@his.com> writes:
> Path: washington.Capitol.Net!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gatech!news.akorn.net!news.his.com!kendall
> From: ken...@his.com (Kendall P. Bullen)
> Newsgroups: his.internet.users,dc.general
> Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic replies!
> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 12:20:30 -0400
> Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc.
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <kendall-0509...@news.his.com>
> References: <50l0n8$s...@news2.his.com> <gberger-0409...@gberger.his.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: kendall.his.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13


>
> In article <gberger-0409...@gberger.his.com>, gbe...@his.com
> (George Berger) wrote:
>
> >Annie, you can't have it both ways. Think about it.
>
> Um, she didn't write that -- she was forwarding a note from someone at
> Bell Atlantic. Read the whole message. . . .
>
> KPB
>

> --
> Kendall P. Bullen ken...@his.com or kbu...@tax.org
> . . . take your pick!
>

Well let's see... Bell Titanic says they can't make any money cause the
internet users are tying up phone lines...hmmm. I guess that means that bell
will have to spend a LOT more money upgrading their switches. Lower profits,
pissed off stock holders sounds like a drag. The business man in me is
sympathetic to the bell situation but the bottem line is the bell monopoly is
in it's twilight. The actions of the bells are now more and more desperate.
Does any one realize that Bell Atlantic over charged thousands of customers
and then reported them selves to the authorities with one of these "we were so
bad we should be punished" deals, and then for penance proceded to deploy
numerous T-3 lines (45 Mbps circuits) into schools and colleges for full
motion video conferencing applications. They wanted to get the schools hooked
on the 45 Mbps video and then phase in the charges. What the hell??? Should be
illegal!!! Bell is trying to increase their position in these days of de-reg
by trying to establish bullshit tarrifs and sleazy stratigic moves like the
video circuits.

I'm sorry this is running on but if Bell thinks they can drum up
support/sympathy from the public or from ISPs by sending out emails on the sly
they're out of their minds.

"Bell Atlantic...We don't care, we don't have to."


Eric Youngdale

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

In article <kendall-0509...@news.his.com>,

Kendall P. Bullen <ken...@his.com> wrote:
>In article <ph-040996...@news.his.com>, p...@his.com (Paul Heller) wrote:
>
>>Harumph. B.A. wants it both ways - they want our money to have the lines
>>that people can call, and they want your money when you call. And they've
>>got a monopoly - there are no competitors to turn to if we don't like the
>>deal or the treatment we're getting. Seems to me that it's high time for
>>*that* sweet setup to change ...
>
>Though this will change -- Jones Intercable (I think they're called Jones
>Communications) will one day (yeah, I know, *when*?!) be offereing a
>sweet-sounding phone+cable combination (I think there's Internet in them
>thar hills too). They've got two buildings supplied like this as testbeds
>or whatever.

That someday is today. I got hooked up on Tuesday to the
high-speed internet connection via cable TV. Maximum throughput is
10Mbit/sec bidirectional. Flat rate 39.95/month. See www.jic.com for
more information.

That being said, the network is horribly congested in the early
evening. Maybe I notice it now because I have the fast connection,
but I set up a cron job to benchmark ftp performance in 15 minute
intervals, transferring a file from wauug.erols.com. The peak transfer
rate I get is about 120Kbyte/sec in the middle of the night. Actual rates
at other times are usually more like 30-40Kbyte/sec during the day, and
it can drop as low as 5Kbyte/sec during the early evening. Even at this
lowest rate, the effective throughput is about equivalent to ISDN, but
this is pretty awful for interactive because the data is transferred in
quick bursts.

From what I can tell, the problem is somewhere on the MCI
backbone. I did some ftp benchmarks to the mail server at jic.com, and I
routinely get ftp transfer rates of about 400-500Kbyte/sec. I believe
that this is quite close to the theoretical maximum transfer rate you
would expect from 10Mbit transfer medium. Perhaps their gateway is
slow or something, who knows.

I am still in the process of configuring a few things on my
machine - I only have the newsreader partially configured so I cannot
yet post from my own machine yet. They provide a mail server and a
news server, btw.

-Eric

--
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep,
And lines to code before I sleep, And lines to code before I sleep."

Tom Witte

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

In article <50o6k3$l...@news2.cais.com>, er...@cais.cais.com (Eric
Youngdale) wrote:

> >Though this will change -- Jones Intercable (I think they're called Jones
> >Communications) will one day (yeah, I know, *when*?!) be offereing a
> >sweet-sounding phone+cable combination (I think there's Internet in them
> >thar hills too). They've got two buildings supplied like this as testbeds
> >or whatever.
>
> That someday is today. I got hooked up on Tuesday to the
> high-speed internet connection via cable TV. Maximum throughput is
> 10Mbit/sec bidirectional. Flat rate 39.95/month. See www.jic.com for
> more information.

Does not that rate assume you have the required ~$30/month cable service.

Eric Youngdale

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

You must already be a customer, but I was told that you don't
need to sign up for some fancy cable package to get this. I was told
that the minimum was the very lowest level of service (which normally only
brings you something like local channels), and this runs about 9$/month.
You will have to talk to them for more details.

Charles Gillen

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

In article <50o6k3$l...@news2.cais.com>, er...@cais.cais.com (Eric
Youngdale) wrote:

> I am still in the process of configuring a few things on my
>machine - I only have the newsreader partially configured so I cannot
>yet post from my own machine yet. They provide a mail server and a
>news server, btw.

Are personal home pages possible on JIC?

Here in Reston (outdoor TV antennas verboten) we also are the captive
audience of Jones Cable. Actually, I would be rather leery of subscribing
to a net provider run by neophytes... perhaps Paul should branch out and
supply such TV cable firms with a Net "front end" that really works.

----
Reston VA USA --- Charles...@His.Com
Home Page: HTTP://www.his.com/~gillen


j...@his.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

gil...@his.com (Charles Gillen) wrote:


>Are personal home pages possible on JIC?
>
>Here in Reston (outdoor TV antennas verboten) we also are the captive
>audience of Jones Cable.

NOT ANYMORE!!!! Take a look at the following URLs!!!

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/otafacts.html

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/fcc96328.txt

Congress and the FCC have told the twits in Reston, Burke Centre,
Columbia, and the zoning boards of the world what they can do with their
rules forbidding TV antennas and satellite dishes.

Eric Youngdale

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

In article <50pe1m$n...@news2.his.com>, Charles Gillen <gil...@his.com> wrote:
>In article <50o6k3$l...@news2.cais.com>, er...@cais.cais.com (Eric
>Youngdale) wrote:
>
>> I am still in the process of configuring a few things on my
>>machine - I only have the newsreader partially configured so I cannot
>>yet post from my own machine yet. They provide a mail server and a
>>news server, btw.
>
>Are personal home pages possible on JIC?

At this point I don't know whether they provide this service.

Personally I am running a Linux box, and it already has a httpd
running on it. All I need to do is to get them to add my machine to their
DNS tables, and I can have my personal home page on my machine at home.
Still waiting on that one - I think I need to call again.

>Here in Reston (outdoor TV antennas verboten) we also are the captive

>audience of Jones Cable. Actually, I would be rather leery of subscribing
>to a net provider run by neophytes... perhaps Paul should branch out and
>supply such TV cable firms with a Net "front end" that really works.

The impression that I have gotten is that the Internet people and
the cable TV people are in two seperate divisions of the company. They
know each other's phone numbers, and they are smart enough to refer people
to the other side if questions come up they cannot answer, but it was
quite clear that I was dealing with two distinct entities. This
is why when they did the install, they brought out 2 people. One was
the guy who could pull more cable, install a new jack, etc. The other
one was the guy who could install the ethercard and set it up.

The networking guy seemed to be at least somewhat knowledgable.
Since I had a linux box, he had no idea how to configure it at all, so I
had to do this part, but I just kept asking him questions about various
parameters I needed, and he always had the correct answers available
without having to call back to the office or anything.

The mail server is a SCO box, so I can say for a fact that they
aren't all DOS weenies.

My impression is that Jones is taking it kind of slow as they ramp
up the service. They have a learning curve too, and they need to train
people to install the thing for people as they get hooked up. I suspect
that the lessons that they learn in Alexandria will be used in other
cities.

David Paper

unread,
Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96
to

In article <50o6k3$l...@news2.cais.com>,

Eric Youngdale <er...@cais.cais.com> wrote:
>In article <kendall-0509...@news.his.com>,
>Kendall P. Bullen <ken...@his.com> wrote:
>>In article <ph-040996...@news.his.com>, p...@his.com (Paul Heller) wrote:
>>

> That being said, the network is horribly congested in the early
>evening. Maybe I notice it now because I have the fast connection,
>but I set up a cron job to benchmark ftp performance in 15 minute
>intervals, transferring a file from wauug.erols.com. The peak transfer
>rate I get is about 120Kbyte/sec in the middle of the night. Actual rates
>at other times are usually more like 30-40Kbyte/sec during the day, and
>it can drop as low as 5Kbyte/sec during the early evening. Even at this
>lowest rate, the effective throughput is about equivalent to ISDN, but
>this is pretty awful for interactive because the data is transferred in
>quick bursts.

I don't know where you got your information about ISDN from, but
BRI ISDN gives consistent throughput rates of 13kb/sec. That's
what I get on mine.

>
> From what I can tell, the problem is somewhere on the MCI
>backbone. I did some ftp benchmarks to the mail server at jic.com, and I
>routinely get ftp transfer rates of about 400-500Kbyte/sec. I believe
>that this is quite close to the theoretical maximum transfer rate you
>would expect from 10Mbit transfer medium. Perhaps their gateway is
>slow or something, who knows.

it's nice to be able to transfer from the other side of your
conneciton, but it's the gateway to the rest of the internet
that makes a difference :)

-dave


--
--
"One only needs two tools in life: WD-40 to make things go, and duct tape to
make them stop."
ce...@glue.umd.edu cerb...@ginch.org http://www.ginch.org

Morgoth

unread,
Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96
to

People must remember, last I heard, cable people and telephone companies
have to be seperate. Bell Atlantic seems to get around it tho.
Its the main reason last I heard, that telephones are not over the cables,
which is better than the current copper wire, tho not as good as fiber
optic, but who needs fiber other than for LD calls. Around town, unless
your office has a great need for large bandwidth, you don't need fiber
optic, other than as a status symbol.

Basically the average mom and pops business or home does not need all the
bandwidth a fiber optic cable has.

Morgoth

If you think I'm scary, you should see me kids (grin).

Allan E. Levy

unread,
Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96
to

In article <50pe1m$n...@news2.his.com>, gil...@his.com (Charles Gillen) wrote:

> In article <50o6k3$l...@news2.cais.com>, er...@cais.cais.com (Eric
> Youngdale) wrote:
>
> > I am still in the process of configuring a few things on my
> >machine - I only have the newsreader partially configured so I cannot
> >yet post from my own machine yet. They provide a mail server and a
> >news server, btw.
>
> Are personal home pages possible on JIC?
>

> Here in Reston (outdoor TV antennas verboten) we also are the captive
> audience of Jones Cable.

If you own your home - not any more - the recent FCC ruling also allows
outside antennas as well as satellite dishes

Sincerely,
Allan E. Levy

I remember the IBM 650 (Tube, 2000 address drum, card reader/punch)

Jim Jagielski

unread,
Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96
to

er...@cais.cais.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:

> That being said, the network is horribly congested in the early
>evening. Maybe I notice it now because I have the fast connection,
>but I set up a cron job to benchmark ftp performance in 15 minute
>intervals, transferring a file from wauug.erols.com. The peak transfer
>rate I get is about 120Kbyte/sec in the middle of the night. Actual rates
>at other times are usually more like 30-40Kbyte/sec during the day, and
>it can drop as low as 5Kbyte/sec during the early evening. Even at this
>lowest rate, the effective throughput is about equivalent to ISDN, but
>this is pretty awful for interactive because the data is transferred in
>quick bursts.

At least with ISDN, you don't "compete" for the line, so you can
be assured of your 64-128bps.

> From what I can tell, the problem is somewhere on the MCI
>backbone. I did some ftp benchmarks to the mail server at jic.com, and I
>routinely get ftp transfer rates of about 400-500Kbyte/sec. I believe
>that this is quite close to the theoretical maximum transfer rate you
>would expect from 10Mbit transfer medium. Perhaps their gateway is
>slow or something, who knows.

Of all the backbones, I'd doubt that the problem would be with
MCI. They have the most technologically advanced 'net so far.
Now Sprint, on the other hand, I'd believe :) :)

Although you may enjoy 10Mbps on the cable network, the rest of the
'Net is not there. Most ISPs are T1 or possibly T3. So what good is the
pipe being capable of 10Mbps on the cable-side when, as soon as you
move over into the "real" part of the 'Net, the odds are very, very
good that the place you are connecting to has, at most, a T1, and
between you and them there might be who-knows-what.

That being said, cable is a fantastic medium for data transmission.
Most cable comps try to make the most of it by caching data on their
network and providing as much "multimedia" glitz on _there_ side.
Also, simply due to the design of the cable infrastructure, data over
cable-TV lines will never be as noise-and-interference-free as the
phone system (it's very easy for noise from a neighbor down the block to
leak into _your_ cable and drastically reduce throughput). Cable has
a place in the market, as do all ISPs. It's a very big "niche" market-
place :)
--
Jim Jagielski << j...@jaguNET.com >> | "There is a time for laughing,
** jaguNET Access Services ** | and a time for not laughing,
Email: in...@jaguNET.com | and this is not one of them"
++ http://www.jaguNET.com/ +++ Voice/Fax: 410-931-3157 ++

Eric Youngdale

unread,
Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96
to

In article <50t4vs$r...@shado.jaguNET.com>,
Jim Jagielski <j...@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>er...@cais.cais.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:
>
>At least with ISDN, you don't "compete" for the line, so you can
>be assured of your 64-128bps.

I hope you mean 64-128Kbit/sec :-). Sorry, couldn't resist.

>
>> From what I can tell, the problem is somewhere on the MCI
>>backbone. I did some ftp benchmarks to the mail server at jic.com, and I
>>routinely get ftp transfer rates of about 400-500Kbyte/sec. I believe
>>that this is quite close to the theoretical maximum transfer rate you
>>would expect from 10Mbit transfer medium. Perhaps their gateway is
>>slow or something, who knows.
>
>Of all the backbones, I'd doubt that the problem would be with
>MCI. They have the most technologically advanced 'net so far.
>Now Sprint, on the other hand, I'd believe :) :)

Yeah, the problem is that I don't know enough about the local topology
for me to be able to figure out exactly where the problem is. I know that
the physical medium is delivering what it is supposed to be delivering,
and the problem lies somewhere beyond that.

The benchmarks that I have been doing were between this machine and
erols.com. traceroute shows that the packets are going through MCI, cais.net,
and erols.net (I can give the exact traceroute to anyone who is interested).
The reason I mentioned MCI is that I would sometimes get long latencies
partways through the traceroute when it was doing the MCI part of things.
The problem could just be congestion on the gateway from jic.com to MCI.

>Although you may enjoy 10Mbps on the cable network, the rest of the
>'Net is not there. Most ISPs are T1 or possibly T3. So what good is the
>pipe being capable of 10Mbps on the cable-side when, as soon as you
>move over into the "real" part of the 'Net, the odds are very, very
>good that the place you are connecting to has, at most, a T1, and
>between you and them there might be who-knows-what.

I see your point, and it is one I have already thought of.
I have a couple of comments.

First of all - T1 speeds are acceptable. If the cable modem gave me
1Mbit/sec I wouldn't be upset. Prior to getting the cable modem,
I had a 14.4 connection via a traditional modem. It is slow, it ties
up the normal phone line, I get a dropped connection when someone calls
me (because I have call-waiting). I needed something better, and this is
a cost-competitive alternative to ISDN. Actually I know people who have ISDN,
and getting customer support from Bell can be a real pain at some times.

Secondly, let me ask how much you pay for ISDN per month?
Are you paying any usage fees? Have you been following what BellAtlantic
has proposed to the PSC's in both MD and VA? If Bell were to get
their way, residential ISDN would be more than twice as expensive than
what I am paying for the high-speed access via the cable modem, and
all you get is a physical medium that is 80 times slower.

The main disadvantage that I see to the cable modem is that I
cannot get into the machines at work. All of the work machines are behind
a firewall, and I cannot telnet past it to get to our machines there. To
get into the machines at work, I need to dial in with a traditional modem or
ISDN.

>That being said, cable is a fantastic medium for data transmission.
>Most cable comps try to make the most of it by caching data on their
>network and providing as much "multimedia" glitz on _there_ side.

This wouldn't be unreasonable.

>Also, simply due to the design of the cable infrastructure, data over
>cable-TV lines will never be as noise-and-interference-free as the
>phone system (it's very easy for noise from a neighbor down the block to
>leak into _your_ cable and drastically reduce throughput). Cable has
>a place in the market, as do all ISPs. It's a very big "niche" market-
>place :)

I am not sure if I buy this. Remember that they pulled fiber-optic
lines where I am. My understanding was that this was a prerequisite for
the high speed data stuff - possibly for the reasons you cite. The limited
benchmarks that I have done so far show that I get 400-500Kbytes/sec getting
to the mail server, which shows me that the medium is basically delivering
what was advertised.

From my perspective JIC just becomes like another ISP, so I will end
up rating them in terms of how well they provide service, keep the lines up,
respond to growth, etc. There may be other technological problems that crop
up as more and more people sign up - this is all fairly new, and I am sort of
a guinea pig here. Only time will tell.

If it sounds like I am a big booster of the cable-modem, I guess I
would have to admit that it is kind of exciting. Getting the physical
connection working was a piece of cake as it turns out. I still have minor
problems (I am still trying to get them to put my machine in their DNS tables,
and they still haven't done it), so not everything is perfect over here.

Even for people who cannot get the cable modem, it provides an
important benefit. Bell appears to be taking the position that ISDN is
the Cadillac of connections and that people should be forced to pay Cadillac
prices. With the cable-modem, ISDN begins to look more like a Chevrolet,
(I suppose the 14.4 modem would be like a Yugo :-) and the service must be
priced appropriately. If we succeed and residential ISDN is priced
reasonably, then this would limit the ability of JIC to jack up the rates in
the future.

David Paper

unread,
Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96
to

In article <50un87$f...@news2.cais.com>,

Eric Youngdale <er...@cais.cais.com> wrote:
>In article <50t4vs$r...@shado.jaguNET.com>,
>Jim Jagielski <j...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>er...@cais.cais.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:
>>
>>At least with ISDN, you don't "compete" for the line, so you can
>>be assured of your 64-128bps.
>
> I hope you mean 64-128Kbit/sec :-). Sorry, couldn't resist.

yeah, I'm sure he did :)

>>Although you may enjoy 10Mbps on the cable network, the rest of the
>>'Net is not there. Most ISPs are T1 or possibly T3. So what good is the
>>pipe being capable of 10Mbps on the cable-side when, as soon as you
>>move over into the "real" part of the 'Net, the odds are very, very
>>good that the place you are connecting to has, at most, a T1, and
>>between you and them there might be who-knows-what.
>
> I see your point, and it is one I have already thought of.
>I have a couple of comments.
>
> First of all - T1 speeds are acceptable. If the cable modem gave me

Umm. Last time I checked, Jones Cable of Alexandria requested the FCC license
to deliver the type of service you just installed to somewhere around 62,500
houses. If you had your OWN t1, that would be fine. I wouldn't share a t1
among 62,500 houses if every house JUs thad a 14.4 modem. See where I'm
coming from? You said that at peak times, you saw 5kb/sec. Think how fast
that's going to be where 20 people like yourself get cable modems and start
to pound the link.

I saw what you mentioned about topology of your network and connection to the
internet. The idea is fantastic. I'm an ISDN user, and it's very quick
compared to a modem, but slow compared to your connection right now. But -
I don't share worry about loosing part of that 128K line at 6pm :)

>1Mbit/sec I wouldn't be upset. Prior to getting the cable modem,
>I had a 14.4 connection via a traditional modem. It is slow, it ties
>up the normal phone line, I get a dropped connection when someone calls
>me (because I have call-waiting). I needed something better, and this is
>a cost-competitive alternative to ISDN. Actually I know people who have ISDN,
>and getting customer support from Bell can be a real pain at some times.

More than a pain.

>
> Secondly, let me ask how much you pay for ISDN per month?

$40/mo plus 9 cents/call/channel. make a call leave it up forever.

>Are you paying any usage fees? Have you been following what BellAtlantic

just the above, not metered by time.

>has proposed to the PSC's in both MD and VA? If Bell were to get
>their way, residential ISDN would be more than twice as expensive than
>what I am paying for the high-speed access via the cable modem, and
>all you get is a physical medium that is 80 times slower.

yes, I've been to the MD PSC. They love citizens. what are you talking about :)

Jim Jagielski

unread,
Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96
to

er...@cais.cais.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:

>In article <50t4vs$r...@shado.jaguNET.com>,
>Jim Jagielski <j...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>er...@cais.cais.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:
>>
>>At least with ISDN, you don't "compete" for the line, so you can
>>be assured of your 64-128bps.

> I hope you mean 64-128Kbit/sec :-). Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ack! Yep. I did :)


>>Although you may enjoy 10Mbps on the cable network, the rest of the
>>'Net is not there. Most ISPs are T1 or possibly T3. So what good is the
>>pipe being capable of 10Mbps on the cable-side when, as soon as you
>>move over into the "real" part of the 'Net, the odds are very, very
>>good that the place you are connecting to has, at most, a T1, and
>>between you and them there might be who-knows-what.

> I see your point, and it is one I have already thought of.
>I have a couple of comments.

> First of all - T1 speeds are acceptable. If the cable modem gave me
>1Mbit/sec I wouldn't be upset. Prior to getting the cable modem,
>I had a 14.4 connection via a traditional modem. It is slow, it ties
>up the normal phone line, I get a dropped connection when someone calls
>me (because I have call-waiting). I needed something better, and this is
>a cost-competitive alternative to ISDN. Actually I know people who have ISDN,
>and getting customer support from Bell can be a real pain at some times.

One big concern is how big of a pipe does Jones have to the 'Net. From
what I can see, it looks like a T1. So they have thousands of customers
with cable-modems who expect 10Mbps performance, but once they leave
the cable network, they all pass through a T1.

In any case, a true T1 is expensive... expecting true T1 performance at
$30-40/mo is kinda unrealistic, unless you stay within the cable company's
network.

It's for this reason that almost all cable-TV providers who also have
or plan to offer Internet access promote their "online community"
aspect of it. They hope that they can make-up for the drastic performnace
drop when you leave their network for the "general" internet by
providing intensive content on their local network, where you can
hope to actually achieve some part of the promised performance. They know,
and will even admit, that their Internet access part of it suffers and
is not better than what's currently achievable with POTS. Instead, it's
sort of like a high-speed "online service" with a gateway to the 'Net.

> Secondly, let me ask how much you pay for ISDN per month?
>Are you paying any usage fees? Have you been following what BellAtlantic
>has proposed to the PSC's in both MD and VA? If Bell were to get
>their way, residential ISDN would be more than twice as expensive than
>what I am paying for the high-speed access via the cable modem, and
>all you get is a physical medium that is 80 times slower.

Residential ISDN in MD is still somewhat a joke and, IMO, way to expensive
to be considered a viable alternative. When you can get unlimited POTS
for $20/mo and unlimited ISDN for $260/mo, well....

> The main disadvantage that I see to the cable modem is that I
>cannot get into the machines at work. All of the work machines are behind
>a firewall, and I cannot telnet past it to get to our machines there. To
>get into the machines at work, I need to dial in with a traditional modem or
>ISDN.

Again, this is because they want their "online community" to be unique
enough (and selective enough) that people prefer using cable.

That, plus the fact that outside people downloading their multimedia
stuff would put SERIOUS load on their Internet pipe.

>>Also, simply due to the design of the cable infrastructure, data over
>>cable-TV lines will never be as noise-and-interference-free as the
>>phone system (it's very easy for noise from a neighbor down the block to
>>leak into _your_ cable and drastically reduce throughput). Cable has
>>a place in the market, as do all ISPs. It's a very big "niche" market-
>>place :)

> I am not sure if I buy this. Remember that they pulled fiber-optic
>lines where I am. My understanding was that this was a prerequisite for
>the high speed data stuff - possibly for the reasons you cite. The limited
>benchmarks that I have done so far show that I get 400-500Kbytes/sec getting
>to the mail server, which shows me that the medium is basically delivering
>what was advertised.

Sure. As long as you stay on their side, you can get what's expected,
at least now when not that many people are using it. Once more people
start using it, you have to content with the additional data going thru
the cable-pipe as well as possible noise and interference being pumped
into the cable (depending on the infrastructure design). With most cable
designs, the ring-structure, rather than the star-structure is used
for layout. Thus, it's much easier for noise from one point to propagate
through the cable and affect other points. Fiber-optics will prevent
outside contamination, but not internal junk :/

Nevertheless, most cable co's are smart enough to promote the online
aspects of their service, with the Internet access as an added bonus
rather than the Internet access exclusively. In that, they have a very
nice market to appeal to.

Allan E. Levy

unread,
Sep 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/14/96
to

>
> >has proposed to the PSC's in both MD and VA? If Bell were to get
> >their way, residential ISDN would be more than twice as expensive than
> >what I am paying for the high-speed access via the cable modem, and
> >all you get is a physical medium that is 80 times slower.
>
> yes, I've been to the MD PSC. They love citizens. what are you talking
about :)
>
Last time I talked to the PSC (some time ago) all they cared about was
universal cheap service. What is the best ways to get in touch with
them??
0 new messages