You are correct.
Before sticking my foot farther into my mouth I checked with a friend =
that spent some time designing related systems at AT&T. BOTH connect =
time and data transfer are a problem. Here is what he says:

"From a local switch point of view, the average connect time of a call =
is pretty important. Local switches are engineered to support a certain =
number of connections, and there are far many more possible connections =
on each switch than can be made by the switch. (Switches are "blocking" =
in the sense that not every input can be connected to every output at =
the same time). The number of allowed connections is typically based on =
things like the average length of a voice call, so Internet calls skew =
that number badly. This results in a lot of denied connections (fast =
busy). The fact that these Internet calls are also data intensive, =
without as many pauses as voice calls (and are not balanced - that is, =
most traffic flows one way) would also cause problems. High speed modem =
calls cannot be compressed like voice can.

My old knowledge of local switches would say then that both the average =
connect time and the non-compressibility of modem traffic (due to high =
speeds and lack of pauses) are problems for local phone companies. "

Steve

----------
From: Bob Mauritsen[SMTP:rhm at ms.washington.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 1997 12:27 AM
To: 'tweeters at u.washington.edu'
Cc: Bob Mauritsen
Subject: RE: Possible Threat to Internet Users

My understanding was that even if you are only "connected", then you are
still occupying one of the paths through the phone company "switch". It
is also my understanding that having pathways through the local switch
occupied is one of the big problems. This has nothing to do with
bandwidth or data flow. The more phone lines that are "connected", the
more other people get "sorry all lines are busy now, try again later".
So I don't think we should be encouraging people to stay connected,
even though they aren't downloading something.

Bob Mauritsen
rhm at ms.washington.edu


On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Steve Preston wrote:

> It may be nothing to worry about yet but I highly recommend that we =
all send a note of disapproval to the FCC. If the FCC isn't swamped =
with email against the proposal, they may think its OK to relent to the =
idea.
>=20
> A point of clarification
> -------------------------------
> There is a big difference between "connect time" and actually using =
the internet. "Connecting" to the internet via dial-up uses a line and =
a modem but those are the only significant resources used as part of the =
connection. Except for the increased number of phone lines at people's =
homes and at the internet service providers, this is not a problem for =
the phone companies. So the phone companies are not really worried =
about people that just stay connected to their ISP for a long time - =
this is just a problem for the ISP and their other customers. It's when =
you actually transfer data (e.g. download an web page or email) that =
becomes a problem for the phone companies. Data traffic uses a lot more =
of their system's bandwidth than voice. The recent increase in internet =
traffic (data) has stressed the capacity of their systems. So don't be =
too concerned about how long people are "connected". The phone =
companies are worried about the increase in real usage (data transfer) =
on the internet.
>=20
> Charging for connect time is inequitable because connect time is not =
proportional to actual usage of the telephone company resources. =
Connect time charging is much easier for the phone companies to =
implement.
>=20
> Steve
>=20
>=20
> ----------
> From: Jon. Anderson and Marty Chaney[SMTP:festuca at olywa.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 1997 1:11 PM
> To: 'tweeters at u.washington.edu'
> Subject: Re: Possible Threat to Internet Users
>=20
> Hi folks,
>=20
> I sent a copy of the message to my internet provider, and got the =
following answer:
>=20
> ----------
> From: Jay Stewart[SMTP:cosmo at mail.olywa.net]
>=20
> I wouldn't worry about it yet. The phone company is just playing=20
> politics. I don't think the FCC has any plans to let them start=20
> bilking us any further. We already pay over $10,000 a month to=20
> USWest for our phone lines, so I think we can make a case that in=20
> fact ISPs ARE paying for their fair share.
>=20
> Jay Stewart
> Vice President
> Olympia Networking Services - "Olympia's Premier Internet Access"
> Phone (360) 753.3636 Fax (360) 357.6160 http://www.olywa.net/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20