Re: cost of residential ISDN

["Steven L. White" <WHITE@egertp.ericsson.se>]

  hes@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:
  >>jq@phcs.com writes:
  >> ...
  >>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
  >>to me.
  > 
  >  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
  " interswitch
  costs.