From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 06:42:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: telco's vs x-phones
Message-ID: <199608211619.JAA10587@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




In a reply to Vipul Ved Prakash, Jim Bell wrote:

>Assume 30 cents per meter per fiber for cabled fiber, or about $10
(US) per meter for 36-fiber cable. 

Siecore plain vanilla 36 fiber singlemode list $ 1.82 a foot, $5.46
a yard

>Each fiber pair should be able to handle approximately 1 million
>conversations at current data rates, or a total of 18 million
>conversations for that 18-pair cable, or 9.5 trillion 
>conversation-minutes.

At current data rates (OC-48 Sonet) 32,256 voice channels per
fiber, 580,608 total for the fiber.

Off by a factor of roughly 36 at this point.

>Multiply this cost by 10 for right of way, trenching, repeaters,
>and other auxiliary hardware, or $100 per meter.  This is probably
>just a ballpark estimate, but...

Off by a factor of at least 10 not counting switching equipment.


>I've read that estimates show that it would probably be cheaper to
>provide cellular-telephone service in China to everyone than to
>wire the country up with copper lines.  This isn't particularly
>surprising.  Cell-phones solve the "last few hundred yards/mile or
>two" problem quite well.  Since nearly all of the actual
>connections in a copperline telephone system are 
>switch-to-individual-phone lines, going cellular saves a bundle of
>installation costs.

A good point, in Sri Lanka they were having problems with copper
bandits cutting down all the cable, till they switched to fiber.
The question is can the average citizen of china afford a cell
phone and service for what it can be installed.
 

In a reply to me Jim bell wrote:

>The long distance companies are not "using local networks," your
>customers are...to connect to those long distance companies.  And
>any payments LD companies make to you are, indeed, a subsidy.  
>Tell me, how much is this _subsidy_, exactly?

Who's using who is a matter of perspective. 

Q) if you call a dog's tail a "leg" how many legs does a dog have?

A) four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Point? The LD companies pay to use the RBOC's networks, calling it
a subsidy doesn't make it one, except maybe to you. If they don't
like it, they are free (or soon will be) to build their own, or use
someone elses.

>As an alternative, the phone company would presumably be entitled
>to be served by phone lines, at say $30 per month or so, through
>which their customers reach them.  $30 per month is $1 per day or
>4 cents per hour or about 0.07 cents per minute.   3 cents doesn't
>equal 0.07 cents, now does it?!?

"Presumably be entitled?" The RBOC's currently charge what
regulations allow, if the regs go away, they will charge what the
market will pay.

>Tell me again how "the local/long distance subsidy was eliminated
>at breakup."  Tell me another one, daddy...

Enhance your calm Jim......

>How has this remaining SUBSIDY dropped over time, assuming it has? 
>When is it scheduled to drop to zero?

The rate has gone down since the regs are changing and competition
is increasing. I would be interested in hearing why you think it
will ever drop to zero.

>First, you need to figure out how to supply ISDN for a REASONABLE
>charge, like "no extra charge!" to customers.  It's been over 16
>years after I first heard of ISDN.  At the time, it seemed like a
>wonderful idea...against the 300 baud modems then in use.  Against
>modern 31K modems that you only have to pay for...ONCE...ISDN
>seems mighty lame.

>Face it, ISDN used to be a good idea.  But it's just barely shown
>up the moment it's hit the end of its marketing window.  ISDN will
>have a marketing lifetime for maybe a couple of more years, and
>only then because you can't put more bits through a 3.4 khz
>passband.

>Not to mention all the bullshit propaganda that claimed that with
>ISDN, you wouldn't have to buy any modems.  Well, maybe that's
>just because they didn't CALL them modems, but they charged way
>more for an essentially indistinguishable function.  Can you say,
>"Fraud"?  I knew you could!

 <sigh> Jim, first you set up the ISDN "Strawman" and then you
knock it down. I no more believe that ISDN is the future than you
do.

Be well!

Brian

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