[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cost of residential ISDN
>>Those people who currently are heavy (or full-time) modem users
>>are unlikely to change there connection patterns based simply on
>>switching to a wider pipe. We will not take up any more or less
switch capacity based on converting to ISDN then we do now.
> I see heavy modem users as the prime candidates for ISDN, and the
>use of the "2B" for a data connection will take up twice the capacity
>of everything (except the local loop) compared to a modem.
And less than half the time when using ISDN to transfer large amounts
of data on a dialup basis. This "value" benefits both the consumer
and the phone co.
>> ...>The arguments that ISDN pricing must reflect usage charges in
>>areas where POTS does not have a per minute rate seems specious
> I'd argue that both decisions should be made correctly (and should
>be based on actual costs.) In both cases there are *some* variable
>costs, and so it would be reasonable to have that portion of the costs
>reflected in usage charges. My point in the paragraph quoted at the
>top is that we wouldn't complain about low/ju
stified usage charges.
>However if they are sufficiently low, the telco might consider that it
>isn't worth the fuss to bill for them.
Personally, I don't care whether the phone company adopts usage-based
or flat-rated billing-- as long as the final rates are justified by
operating costs. However, I believe both POTS and ISDN rate structures
should be the same in an area (no flat-rate POTS vs. usage-based ISDN).
I'm also willing to give the phone company t
hat their fixed costs are
higher for ISDN lines. I'm not so willing to give that away for
variable costs. Therefore, I don't mind paying a reasonable (flat-rated)
premium for ISDN. I will not pay a higher usage-based rate per
B channel vs. a POTS connection. There's that word "reasonable" again--
that's what all the fuss is about, eh?
>>I do not believe that usage patterns for existing users
>>will change dramatically over the near term. Of course new
> I agree that the change will probably be gradual - but there is the
>potential for a dramatic change when we look at the number of home
>computers which could be networked - and consider that the broadly
>attractive part of networking is the graphics/Web material which uses
>a lot of bandwidth.
It is for this reason that I don't mind usage-based rates. In fact,
some sort of usage-based component seems very reasonable to me. This
is definitely a deterrant to nailing up a circuit. But,
with usage-based rates should come volume discounts. Almost every
other commodity costs less in quantity, why not minutes?
Does anybody know what a long-distance carrier ends up paying the
phone company per channel? Do they end up paying as much as 1 cent
per minute (or $480/mo just as the usage component)? I believe this
rate would be very relavent in determining "reasonable