Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: FCC considering a rulling that could affect modem users
Message-ID: <783@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Dec-86 17:01:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cci632.783
Posted: Fri Dec 19 17:01:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Dec-86 06:08:39 EST
References: <332@csustan.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex B)
Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY
Lines: 114
Summary: Is it digital or is it voice?
Xref: mnetor misc.misc:392 comp.dcom.modems:74

[postings to the effect that telephone companies want to make
lines to packet switching systems subject to same rules as
voice lines, including "access charges"].

The main contriversy here is based on "point of view".

The following is a representation of the modem/boc connection:

|tty|-|modem|--analog line--|boc|--analog--|PAD|--|X.25|--|host|

or worse as in PC persuit:

tty-modem-analog-boc-analog-PAD-X.25-PAD-analog-boc-modem-tty.

in both cases, the boc, sees:
user-analog-boc-analog-carrier

compare this to long distance voice service which is.

user-analog-boc-analog-carrier(digital)-analog-boc-carrier.

so again, the boc sees:
user-analog-boc-analog-carrier

Now the problem, quite simply is that if "carrier" is a digital
system, then carrier gets a "free hook-up", but if "carrier" is
an analog system, the carrier has to pay an access fee.

The final problem is that a "carrier" effectively requires a
"dedicated line" nearly all the time, and in some cases several
dedicated lines.

A dedicated line, can be used for one of two things, either as
an analog circuit with approx 4800 HZ bandwidth and 64DB range,
or as a digital circuit with 56KB bandwidth, depending on where
the conversion from analog to digital is made.

Until recently, the BOC really didn't care whether a circuit
was for analog or digital perposes because they had to run
analog from the homes to the local concentrator.  In addition,
there weren't that many modems to load the system up for hours
at a time.

Now of course, the BOCs would like to be able to do the "concentration"
of digital data at the closest possible point, since this saves them
a great deal of money.  Just as digital carriers can service 20
carriers using 2400 baud modems, by concentrating the digital on to
one line, the BOCs can get similar savings simply by identifying
a line as being digital rather than analog.

The issue here, is one of "opportunity costs".  Each "line" in
the system generates about $7000/month in revenue.  Because
the "lines" are shared by several users, the rate can be distributed
across several hundred users, at a rate of about $5/month based on
1/2 hour per month usage of the long distance carrier.

For a digital carrier to get maximum utility out of his "packet
switching system" he needs to have 20 of these "lines" in service
practically 24 hours per day for each digital line he carries.
In other words, about the get about $140,000 of service per month
for payments of around $1000 per month.

In addition, modem users often don't even need the bandwidth
of the analog circuit.  Many people get up and go to the bathroom,
or get a snack while the computer quitely waits, especially when
connected to local computers.  In addition, the number of modem
users has nearly doubled every year.  We're killing the averaging
system.

On of the problems for the BOCs however, is that, although they can
put a voice concentrator right on your telephone line, they cannot
put a modem/digital concentrator on your line because the FCC
rules prohibit this.

Many of the standards required for BOC capabilities to handle digital
traffic are already established.  Point to point service is already
possible, but not currently legal, since, as mentioned before, they
are not allowed to sell/rent/lease you their modem/concentrators.

The other difficulty is that the digital carriers are equipped to
support analog circuits rather than digital links.  Were they to
interface directly to the digital lines (via X.25 or ISDN) the
demand for cheaper digital lines would go up.

So now we have a way to cut down line usage, but the BOCs still
have to pay for service and support of the additional digital
connection.  Given the choice between paying $8/month for the
digital service, in addition to charges by your digital carrier,
or getting "free" digital service via the modem, the choice is
obvious.  On the other hand, given the choice between paying $8/month
for the digital, or paying $8/hour in addition to your host charges,
most people would rather pay the extra $8/month.

While this seems like a bad deal for the modem user, the BOCs are
willing to offer improved services, such as "burst rates" of anywhere
from 9600 Kb async, to 56 Kb X.25 depending on what you want to
connect.

Under FCC rulings, the BOCs will still be required to provide "nearly
free" "digital services" connections using BX.25 links between them and
their digital switches, but the would not be required to provide
free analog lines simply because the end point happens to be a digital
service.

The bottom line:
If the ruling goes through, it will probably mean that you will both
want and need a BX.25 modem and link rather than a 212 or whatever you
are using now, but you will probably be happier with the service.

Rex B.
Disclaimer: Although our company does supply equipment to the BOCs,
the opinions expressed above are mine and do not represent the views
of the BOCs, or CCI.  To my knowledge, none of the above information
is proprietary.