From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 06:12:00 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:phoneco vs X-phone
Message-ID: <199608201800.LAA22929@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim bell writes:

>What do you mean, "doesn't really fit the facts"?!?  What part of
>it was incorrect?  Fiber-optic _is_ commonly used in inter-office
>trunks, right? It doesn't wear out, right?  Higher usage doesn't
>entail greater costs, right?  The capacity, while not strictly
>infinite, is high enough so expanded usage doesn't strain most
>links, right?  Finally, modern phone switches have sufficient
>connect capacity so that they can handle usage which would have
>been considered "unusual" by yesteryear's standards.  All 
>of this points to an obvious conclusion:  Telephone companies do
>not, in general, have increased costs as a consequence of
>increased telephone usage.

Fiber does not wear out per se, but it does need replacing, partly
from the inevitable contractor accidents (landscapers) and
occasional entropic events. Mux cards and repeaters do go bad on a
regular basis, there is a correlation between usage and increased
maintenance, and of course increased usage means increased
electricity usage.

One point that seems to be missed here is the very high cost of
compliance with government regulations. If the internet phone
people have to comply with the same regulations it will drive up
their costs dramatically, and if the regulations are lifted for
all, the RBOC's think they can out compete them.

Thank you for your interesting post.

Brian

"Zazen? Well it beats sitting around on your ass all day doing
nothing."