💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › 1992-04 captured on 2023-11-14 at 11:32:13.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From mkapor@eff.org Sat Apr 11 09:03:11 1992
Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA06116
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:30:40 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA01535
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:03:26 -0400
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:03:11 -0400
Message-Id: <199204111703.AA01530@eff.org>
From: Mitchell Kapor <mkapor@eff.org>
Subject: Cable Television and the National Public Network
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
Following are my postings excerpted from a thread in the Well's EFF
conference. Due to Well policy, I cannot supply other posters'
contributions. My remakrs stand alone fairly well.
I begin by replying to an accusation that EFF has swallowed the telco line
on ISDN.
EFF has not taken the telco "LINE" about anything, much less that
they are the idea provider of telecommunications.
What we have said is that ISDN is tactically very interesting as a
first step toward a national public network which is digital, open,
widely available and affordable.
That said (and you can refer to the numerous statements we have made
on this subject), it must be added that cable offers some interesting
possibilities. It has a high bandwidth (hundreds of megabits per
second) and already reaches 60% of homes, passing by over 90%.
The biggest issue we see is that while the telephone system operates
on a common carrier basis which requires the phone companies to
accomodate all comers who wish to sujpply information on the network,
the cable system operates under no such obligation. In fact, there is
an enormous vertical integration in cable already with the major cable
systems such as TCI and Time-Warner owning major interests in cable
channels like CNN, HBO, and others. NBC was unable to mount a CNN
competitor because TCI and others refused to carry it.
In our vision of the national public net, it is crucial that everyone
be allowed to participate, not only as an informationm consumers, but
as a provider. Common carriage is the way to enable this.
Interestingly, there are some preliminary moves suggesting ways in
which this might be accomplished. One proposal, filed in the FCC
hearing o video dialtone, suggests a "condominium" approach in which
cable would install a fiber-coax hybrid system nationally and sell
digital carrying capacity t other carriers (LEC's, long-distance carriers,
etc.) who would then operate that portion on a common carriage basis.
We are interested in exploring these options and discussions are underway.
---
64kb is not the upper bound for transmission over the copper local loop.
ADSL and HDSL both offer high bit-rates to the home. ADSL provides full
T-1 from the CO and some amount (9.6-64kb) back. HDSL currently operates
at 768Kb, but it is fully symmetrical. You would need two pairs to get
the full 1.544Mb.
Both ADSL and HDSL are transmission protocols. In all probability ther
higher level layer of the stack will be adopted from ISDN, according to
the folks at Bellcore we spoke to. ISDN should not be thought of as
simply providing a 64kb "B" channel, but as a protocol suite which can be
extended to operate at higher speeds. In fact, Primnary rate ISDN's
bearer channel's operate at 1.544 Mb. So ADSL or HDSL could be the
means by which primary rate ISDN is made to run over a single copper
pair.
By focusing on ISDN, there is in fact a migration path to higher speeds,
not a dead end. Basic rate ISDN is being deployed now. ADSL and HDSL
are still under development and going into field trials. It will be
years before you could get it at home, and that assumes that the telcos
will be of a mind to tariff it affordably. We like HDSL because, as a
symmetrical system, is will allow users to originate high quality video
as well as to receive it.
Meanwhile, it is likely that higher speeds and longer distances can be
achieved over copper. At a Broadband conference last week, an
infrastructure planning manager at Ameritech told me he thinks it's
possible
to deliver 3-6 megabits/second over the local loop using ATM protocols.
Speculative, but enticing. The RBOCs have not given much thought to high-
speed transmission over coper until very recently. We think they should
pursue these prospects diligently.
Various hybrid systems, comvining copper and fiber or copper and coax also
seem worth investigating. We are making a visit to the FCC this week and
to Cable Labs at the end of the month. This subject will be on the agenda
both places.
Meanwhile, EFF Cambridge is ordering ISDN lines for the office and at
home of staff members. It's available in Mass. and priced at 1.6 cents
per minute. We'll let you know how the experiments go. Right now it's
only available within individual central offices, so its utility is
somewhat limited. But it should enable users at home with Macintoshes
to operate like they're on a Localtalk network to the office.
---
The telcos have seen ISDN primarily as a voice service, whereas the
immediate demand will be as a data service. ISDN adapters are available
today for PC's for the same cost as a high-speed modem - $300-$500.
Prices
will fall further as volume goes up. Sun is widely rumored to be building
in ISDN into every workstation. It will just BE THERE. Telecom market
research firms may have some of their heads wdged in the same places as
some
of the telcos. Obvious ISDN applications exist now for LAN-extenders,
work
at home, Internet at home, etc. Enough to drive the first 100,000 users
in
the U.S., to show there is real demand for the service.
Video telephones will be a very big market for ISDN as consumer units
offering good quality over 64kb (bot 56) come to market over the next two
years and crash through the $1000 then $500 price points.
Cable has interesting possibilities, but they are not here and now. ISDN
is
being deployed here and now.
Coax cable cannot handle two way high quality video now. Architectures
to permit this are just being explored now. It will take several years
if not a decade to develop the standards, protocols, implementations, and
peripheral equipment required. We encourage this but think that's too
long to waIt in the absence of an alternative.
EFF is interested in a platform which is digital, has wide-spread
availability, and which is affordable. Cable systems could play a key role
here. We're interested in exploring this with them.
Cable reaches over 60% of households and passes by over 90%. It meets the
wide-spread availability criterion.
Coax is very high-capacity, 1 gigabit over short distances.
Hybrid fiber-coax systems, in which trunks are fiber to the pedestal, and
existing coax to the home are being investigated heavily by cable
industry.
This is good.
The cable industry will use digital cable to deliver more pay-per-view and
video on demand of movies and other entertainment. This will pay for the
investment required to upgrade (presumably).
Cable itself is not under common carrier regime. This is a problem. Cable
should consider creation of digital common carriage pipe within a pipe.
Dick Leghorn's condominium scheme (proposed in his filing in the video
dial-tone case) represents one approach in this direction. We think it
should be explored further. In that approach other carriers like LEC's,
IXC's own and operate common carriage service which runs through cable
system. There has to be sufficient overall capacity, and new cable
systems
have to be properly architected from the outset to support this. Of
particular concern is making sure it's fully interactive. Existing cable
has trouble with interactivity, as architected with tree and branch
structure as a one way system. It is not necessary that system be fully
symmetrical, but it is necessary that the system allow for origination of
high-quality video at any point, not just at the head-end. The cost to
originate high-quality video need not be as low as cost to receive, but
still needs to be affordable. This has to be defined.
Finally, cable should be open to explore more creative relationships with
telcos in the area of public infrastructure. For instance, in the use of
ISDN in the near-term coupled with one way digital cable. One way digital
cable can be done now without much if any enhancement of existing cable (I
am told). If coupled with ISDN (meaning the subscriber has to have an
ISDN
line too) could be powerful next step. What's key here is to incorporate
in
the set-top converters the necessary electronics for both cable and ISDN
in
this case.
From mkapor@eff.org Mon Apr 13 07:18:17 1992
Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA19129
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:39:34 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA18534
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:18:20 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:18:17 -0400
Message-Id: <199204131518.AA18528@eff.org>
From: <Bob_Frankston@frankston.com>
Subject: Frankston on ISDN
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
Prescript: I've been putting these comments together for a while, but at
some
point, I've got to ship the product even if it is not perfect nor complete.
With that caveat in mind, I'm submitting this commentary on ISDN and the
rest
of the universe.
I've just read through D.P.U. 91-63-B of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Public utilities which is the response to the ISDN filings.
I've already Prodigy's briefs on the subject. Though the language was a
bit
long winded, it was, to my surprise, fascinating. I don't know how these
compare to what the situation is in other states, but there is some
spirited
opposition to NET's attempt to sell ISDN services at a high rate. The
Prodigy filing also incorporated some of Mitch Kapor's research.
I should also strongly emphasize that I am not a lawyer, I'm not well
versed
in regulatory law. I'm more a dabbler/kibbitzer in these matters, then an
expert. Given all that, I'll attempt to give a biased summary of the
filings
and my reactions. More my reactions than summary.
The basic position of NET is that ISDN is an optional offering that should
be
priced at competitive rates. Where competitive means "what the market will
bear". Prodigy's position is that ISDN should be a basic part of the
communications infrastructure and should be priced at a rate that would
encourage its use, or at least, not discriminate against its use. NET
referred to Prodigy's view as a "field of dreams" wherein Prodigy expects
that if ISDN were available, people would flock to it. NET claimed its
studies showed that there are people who would pay high rates for ISDN and
thus it should be priced for the known customers. I call this "railroad
pricing" referring to the days when the railroads were in decline and kept
increasing their rates to get the same return from fewer passengers and
thus
reduced the number of passengers etc. Even worse, for communications
offering, providing only one hand so that people can experiment with
clapping
has its limits.
There is much discussion on what the actual costs of ISDN deployment are.
This gets complicated because the costs of ISDN components vary due to
accounting considerations as well as purchase price variations due to one
time offers, quantity discounts and startup costs. The distinction between
hardware, software and other components is not clear, so I resort to the
technical term "stuff". The fact that these are not broken out makes it
hard
to evaluate some of the claims.
The DPU seems to be caught in the middle. It seems to buy into the
infrastructure argument but is very conservative on limiting NETs rates
since
NET must be allowed to recover its costs.
Now a word from our sponsor -- me. I had a number of disparate (knowing
how
bad spelling is on the net, I should point out that that is not a typo for
desperate) reactions to reading these filings.
One question is whether ISDN is the right service for data. Some of the
DPU
discussion was on the relationship of ISDN as a data transport with
switched
56KB (an example of high priced service). But there was no discussion on
how
to provide a connectivity other than point to point bulk data transfer. I
realize the advantage of concentrating on ISDN issues is that there is at
least some agreement on what ISDN is -- a necessary prerequisite for
rational
debate. Given the grief that NET is giving over ISDN deployment, asking
for
really different services seems to be an uphill battle.
Which brings us to NET as a consumer buying merchandise off the shelf. It
seems that once they've bought into an exchange (often the DMS-100) they
are
captives of their maintenance plan with the exchange. I can't imagine them
buying anything nontrivial from anyone but Northern-Telecom for its DMS-100
COs. It doesn't seem they have much negotiating leverage. It would be
nice
to see the CO become a more distributed entity that allowed more mixing and
matching from different vendors. For now, at least, it is not clear how to
build such a system. This further concentrates debate on off-the-shelf
ISDN
because alternatives are problematic.
NET whines about the difficulty of providing ISDN, yet they seem to have no
problems if you want Intellipath and Centrex, both of which are ISDN-based
services. This seems to be far from a level playing field. I'd like to
see
a situation in which NET couldn't base any of its services on ISDN unless
others gain the same access. Of course, the fact that the ISDN services
seem
to run in the same switch as ISDN itself means that they can provide the
services without the complexities of providing ISDN to third parties. This
goes back to the issue of the monolithic CO. Perhaps ISDN can be a
mechanism
for brining CO capabilities outside the physical (or even logical) machine
so
that the protocols necessary for these services are provided at arms length
and thus provide a mechanism for a marketplace.
This issue of ISDN as a set of protocols for implementing a marketplace is
an
interesting one but not fully fleshed out in the current ISDN protocols.
It
should receive explicit attention in its own right. Given all this, it
still
galls me to see NET refer to capabilities by their service product names
rather than the generic features. It also recalls the problems that "good'
COCOTS have in trying to compete with NET in the pay phone business since
NET
gives itself a great deal on the costs of phone calls (of course, the fact
that Massachusetts still mandates $.10 for NET pay phones is probably also
a
factor -- something that bespeaks a strong DPU which might make the state a
good place for ISDN advocacy).
The cellular phone network offers an interesting case study. In following
the discussions of features of the cellular phone network, it feels like
amateur night wherein features are cobbled together by kludging together
disparate systems. A lot of the feature set depends on whether one happens
to have an Ericsson or Motorola switch and what sort of jumpers have been
placed between them. I get the impression that many features are
implemented
by placing a PC (personal computer) offnet and having it send back DTMF
codes. I see this a symptom of the complexity of making any changes in the
network. At least, in the network as currently architected
The ISDN and cellular problems illustrate the problem of what happens when
one buys a complete service from a monopoly. Unlike the PC world of mix
and
match, you get all or nothing. A long term agenda should be to go beyond
simply breaking of ATT to architecting a communications infrastructure that
consists of components. This is very very difficult, especially when
coupled
with requirements for reliable and predictable service. It is less clear
that the current approach is more amenable to graceful evolution.
A more modest approach is to encourage competition on the local loop.
Perhaps the RBOCs should be divested of their control of the right of way
and
instead, all parties would have equal access to the communications right of
way at a physical level. Access at a logical or signal level is more
complicated. We'll see some of this in action now that Cable companies are
becoming more of a force for loop competition. Cable company monopolies
are
anther topic I won't get into here.
Back to my Ox. The current network is designed for voice communications
with
services like switched 56KB being viewed as expensive premium services.
But
the reality is just the opposite. Voice is very demanding of the network
whereas data communications is very forgiving of delays and can recover
from
errors (OK, voice can tolerate many errors that give data fits). So why is
voice cheap and data expensive? There are some answers in the current
network architecture but these are not intrinsic.
The other aspect is the circuit switched model for data communications.
Admittedly it is possible to get an X.25 connection that does provide a
switched service but I'm not confident that it is sufficiently standard for
me to assume I can make a very cheap quick connection to a service and be
charged accordingly. If I want to get one stock price, how much overhead
is
involved? If I want to keep simultaneous connections to multiple services
is
there a holding charge? I realize that there is a contradiction between my
asking for a raw service from telco and the ability to then buy enhanced
services from other parties. But is the raw service copper to the CO and a
voice path or is it a datapath. If a third party provides the packet
service, do all messages have to travel through the network and then get
redispatched? Are there sufficient standards for things to "just work"?
This brings us to the concept of intra CO tariffs These do exist for
Centrex
and might exist for early ISDN capabilities which can be supported within a
switch but which must await protocol upgrades (SS7?) in order to
communicate
with other exchanges. I can image that a call within the exchange being
essentially free but having a significant charge to call the next town. Or
should social policy minimize this? We already have the example of cable
TV
systems where I simply cannot get broadcasts from the next town -- a very
bad
precedent but something we accept as if it were natural rather than a
kludge
while we await BISDN (where BISDN is a code word for switched video but not
limited to ISDN protocols).
Postscript. I've seen mention that NET has adopted ISDN pricing that is
akin
to standard message unit service but haven't seen the details. I've also
received a brochure from Nynex touting Basic Exchange Service which seems
to
be their ISDN Centrex replacement that lists a menu of features that you
can
select 3 of plus optional features. Of course, it is these services that
are
being offered, not "raw" ISDN.
[Pricing in Mass. is 2.6 cents per minute for the first minute for
residential service, 1.6 cents per minute thereafter. For businessis, the
rates are 9.6 cents for the initial minute and 1.6 cents thereafter. This
covers service to the CO. Inter-office tariffs will be filed by the end of
the year. - Mitch Kapor]
From mkapor@eff.org Mon Apr 13 08:34:21 1992
Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA21273
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:51:54 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA20460
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:34:26 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:34:21 -0400
Message-Id: <199204131634.AA20454@eff.org>
From: goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com (k1io, FN42jk)
Subject: ISDN backbone costs, prices
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
Bob Frankston's comments, and Mitch's earlier comments from another
bulletin board, both point out the importance of ISDN usage pricing.
How much does switched data differ from voice?
New England Telephone's new Mass. tariff assigns measured voice usage
rates to switched intra-office ISDN switched 64 kbps. Most businesses
have to pay measured usage anyway. Residential customers in Mass. are
entitled to pay for flat-rate local voice calling, with various radius
options in the Boston area. But that's not to be applied to ISDN clear-
channel 64 kbps.
Some other telephone companies have offered voice/data parity for
ISDN. I believe that's the case with Southwestern Bell and Pacific
Bell, as well as BT (aka British Telecom). Of course, BT doesn't offer
any flat-rate local calling to anyone; their local message rates are
higher than anywhere in the US.
Within a CO, voice = data is a good assumption. Everything's handled
at 64 kbps. So parity is logical. But Mass. DPU has a veneer of
justification for requiring this to go at message rate: The flat rates
were set based upon the typical voice user's traffic. While modems
benefit from that (we don't face the odious "modem tax" here the way
some SWBell and Moscow Tel customers may), it's still a distortion of
the "intent" of flat rates: If ISDN were offered for flat-rate usage,
then a single ISDN access line could make _two_ simultaneous calls for
"free", one on each B channel!
The fix to that gets confusing. The new Mass. tariff charges a fixed
surcharge, atop your voice line rate, for ISDN. It doesn't matter if
you're Metropolitan or Measured service. If you could make two calls
at a time over one Metro-rated ISDN line, they'd be "losing" the revenue
that they'd get today by selling you a second Metro line, which costs
quite a bit more than a Measured line.
The rational-user's response is also interesting. I think that it's
possible to make two "speech" calls at a time over an ISDN line. A
"speech" call falls under the flat rate. I assume NET doesn't figure
that this will be a big problem.
To be sure, the "problem" is not one of "losing money" (rate lower than
cost), but of "opportunity cost" (lower profit margin). The 1.6c/minute
measured rate (over a nickle beyond 8 miles) is way, way above their
true cost. It subsidizes the low basic residential rates and cheap
installation rates. Crocodile tears come to mind.
Now, the rational-user's response is applied to data. If the call
is the same voice or data, why even tell the network that it's data?
If you originate a local call bearer service = speech, it'll still carry
data at 56 kbps, if not the full 64 kbps (American T1 being an issue).
So you may still get the flat rate for data.
Is this "cheating"? No, because the network is only delivering the
grade of service that you contracted for, which is speech, and any
ability to send data is without warranty of any kind. Furthermore,
you _have to_ do this in order to go between COs. Without SS7, all
interoffice calls default to speech, and data calls fail. Since the
interoffice trunks are (almost?) all digital now, why not use them for
data anyway, over the Speech bearer service.
That's actually an official feature of the Digiboard IMAC remote ISDN
to Ethernet bridge. It will do 56 kbps over Speech calls, complete with
echo suppressor cancellation tone (needed for long haul inter-LATA use).
And it's a capability that some telcos actually tell us to use -- Pac
Bell mentioned it to customers as a work-around for the lack of SS7.
I hope to "test" it over NET's network this year.
So the data price is a compromise between different theories, and you
don't really have to pay it anyway. What a country! :-)
This, btw, really bewilders ISDN users in Europe. They don't even
dream of trying this "speech" hack. They don't usually need to, anyway,
and they worry that they'd not get PTT certification for equipment that
ran that way. And they're too timid. And they don't have flat rate
local calls to begin with. And it's not in the CCITT Recommendations.
It's not even called out explicitly in the ANSI Standards. So it's
a mandatory part of ISDN "folklore", which implementors have to know,
but nobody wants to write it down.
fred
From mkapor@eff.org Mon Apr 13 16:14:50 1992
Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA03544
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:33:21 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA00491
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:14:54 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:14:50 -0400
Message-Id: <199204140014.AA00483@eff.org>
From: <Bob_Frankston@frankston.com>
Subject: NET & DPU -- A glossary
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
For the sake of the furriners in California, NET=>New England Telephone,
part
of Nynex (our RBOC). DPU is the Department of Public Utilities that
attempts
to regulate such matters. I apologize for forgetting that Massachusetts is
not the world.
From mkapor@eff.org Tue Apr 14 03:30:42 1992
Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA14565
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:53:45 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA26080
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:30:53 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:30:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199204141130.AA26059@eff.org>
From: Jack Powers <jackp@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Cable vs. telcos
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
Fellow pub-infra readers, I'd like to comment on Mitch's remarks
concerning "swallowing the telco line" about ISDN:
Mitch is right about cable companies not being common carriers, either
in fact or in spirit. Anyone who wants to "do data" on a CATV system
(and I have done it) will have deal with a few unpleasant realities:
- Most cable systems are one way only (simplex). [This forced me to
invent a hybrid that uses the phone in the reverse direction for
all the cable systems in the region of interest.] True, the FCC
encouraged cable companies to build "2-way capable" systems, and
a few of them did. However, the fact is that about 95% of the US
cable systems transmit in 1 direction only. The exceptions include
numerous short 2-way hops built to comply with franchise agree-
ments requiring links for cities, schools, etc. "2-way capable"
means only that the 1-way amplifiers can be replaced with (more
expensive) 2-way units if desired.
- Cable industry people are mostly unfamiliar with data transmission
and
their first reaction to a proposal to "do data" is usually worry
that it will interfere with the TV business that pays their wages.
- Many cable systems are owned by big holding companies called "Multi-
ple System Operators" (MSOs). If you want to interest your local
system people in doing data, you may have to sell the concept to
MSO management far away both geographically and organizationally.
- Cable transmission technology is changing rapidly. While this offers
the possibility of a bonanza of bandwidth at *some* point, many
system operators are waiting for a shakeout in vendors and
technology.
- A big wave of interest in Metropolitan Area Networks using CATV
fizzled a few years ago- along with it went a very comprehensive
design by Sytek called Metronet. Some cable people think that data
had its chance and failed, forgetting how fast the technology and
customer needs are changing.
- Many cable systems have major hassles with their TV customers and
franchising authorities about quality and value of service. They
are not looking for new alligators in their swamp.
I don't want to be a wet blanket - I believe that cable has a great
potential
for interactive, high bandwidth data services. However, I think Mitch is
right in concluding that ISDN is the best way to get to a "Network Nation"
(Murray Turoff's term) in time.
I'm not a telco bigot, either. Most telcos (read: big bureaucracies
filled with conservative voice specialists) aren't smart enough to
deploy residential ISDN on their own, they need to be motivated. There
has been talk of using the "carrot" of deregulation to force telcos to
build a massive local fiber network infrastructure. I think it makes
much more sense to motivate them to deploy ubiquitous ISDN... NOW!
In a few years, the cable and telephone people will get together and wire
our homes for interactive, high bandwidth services. In the mean time, we
should leverage the existing twisted pair cable plant with technology that
is proven and standard. That's ISDN.
Jack Powers jackp@well.sf.ca.us jackp@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here have the full concurrance of my employer (me).
From mkapor@eff.org Tue Apr 14 10:55:27 1992
Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA23800
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:15:04 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA03796
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:55:29 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:55:27 -0400
Message-Id: <199204141855.AA03791@eff.org>
From: Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org>
Subject: EFF ISDN Lab Report #1
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
The Switched Circuit #1 - 92/03/31
(Reports from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's ISDN Lab)
by Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> and Helen Rose <hrose@eff.org>
This is the first in a series of reports from the EFF's new ISDN Lab,
where we'll be working with the recently-tariffed ISDN offerings from
New England Telephone, as well as as many different kinds of ISDN
hardware as we can get our hands on.
We recently attended a seminar on ISDN given by New England Telephone
for the benefit of telecommunications consultants. Though they focused
primarily on the business aspects of ISDN (no surprise there) they did
make the point that they were tariffing the service for residential
lines, "regular" single-line business service, and INTELLIPATH Centrex.
(The apparent market focus for the residential offering is work-at-home
or "telecommuting" opportunities, but the residential service is not
crippled in any way.)
The tariffs are interesting in their affordability; this is *not* the
gold-plated service offering we've seen from some of the regional Bells.
(Note that these only apply to Massachusetts; Maine and Vermont have
similar offerings with different tariffs, and we don't have copies of
those tariffs.) Installation charges for ISDN Basic Rate Interface
(BRI, which supplies 2 B channels plus a D channel for call setup and/or
low-speed X.25 packet data) are low (regular installation charges, plus
$15 for each circuit-switched voice, data, or voice/data B channel) and
monthly rates are only $8 over the regular rates for that class of
service, plus $5 for data or voice/data B channels. (Packet switched
connections at either high or low speed are more expensive, however.)
One very nice feature is that NET is not charging the usual monthly
surcharge ($2+) for tone service; this makes the price of an ISDN line
actually *cheaper* than two voice lines (which many people have in order
to make data calls while leaving their "normal" line free). Though you
can't order two of the same type of B channel, the voice/data channel
can be used for either voice or data on a per call basis, allowing you
to order a voice channel and a voice/data channel to get, in effect, two
voice lines (while also having the ability to do circuit-switched data).
Voice calls are charged at the usual rate; if you have unmeasured voice
service, you're not going to be stuck with measured ISDN voice service.
Circuit-switched data calls (64kbps) are charged at measured rates
(until September 25, at business measured rates--currently $.0963 for
the first minute and .016 for each additional minute; after September
25, residential customers will pay $.026 for the first minute), but
are only available (currently) within the same central office. NET
plans to make interoffice connections available starting 4th quarter
1992. The ability to do long-distance ISDN will have to wait for
National ISDN-1, which probably won't happen until 1993 or later.
It may be possible to do 56kbps data over an ISDN "voice" connection,
since the voice connection is merely a bit-robbed digital end-to-end
connection. This is one of the first things we'll test; if true, it
will make an already affordable ISDN tariff even more so.
As part of the ISDN Lab, we'll be trying ISDN between our place and
EFF's Cambridge office, allowing us to test both the residential and
business offerings, and everything from straight 56/64kbps "fast modem"
style connections to AppleTalk and IP over ISDN.
As part of this effort, we will be working with several computer and
telecommunications hardware providers to try out various ISDN terminal
adapters, routing software, and the like.
If you have questions about ISDN, or suggestions for the ISDN Lab, send
electronic mail to isdnlab@eff.org.