Slightly OT: dial up

[johns]

Seems Verizon wants to charge their dialup fee
by the minute for local calls. Right now, it is a
flat fee that is added to the ISP fee, and essentially
doubles what you pay for Internet connection.
Somehow this is being goaded along by constant
failure of dialup due to Verizon hardware failure
.... kind of like the Airport "hardware problem"
when a flight is not full enough. Verizon claims
they are owed $65 million in lost revenue caused
by dialup flat fee. If they somehow manage to
get their way, and really up the dialup charge
so I'm paying nearly $400 a year, why should
I have dialup at all. Why not just DSL, or are
there plans to up the ante on that too. For that
matter, why pay an ISP .. when I could just
pay for one of those Charge Card dialups?
I don't use my home connection for much of
anything ... jpgs of the GrandKids ... the
occassional interesting picture ... Christmas
Shopping. Wife is addicted to it. She and her
friends send jpgs by the gigabyte. Looks like
dialup is dead. I'm going looking for a cheap
solution, even if it is slow as can be. DSL at
$600 per year, and always on, is just stupid
when I use it for next to nothing.

johns

 

[Dave]

Seems Verizon wants to charge their dialup fee
by the minute for local calls. Right now, it is a
flat fee that is added to the ISP fee, and essentially
doubles what you pay for Internet connection.
Somehow this is being goaded along by constant
failure of dialup due to Verizon hardware failure
... kind of like the Airport "hardware problem"
when a flight is not full enough. Verizon claims
they are owed $65 million in lost revenue caused
by dialup flat fee. If they somehow manage to
get their way, and really up the dialup charge
so I'm paying nearly $400 a year, why should
I have dialup at all. Why not just DSL, or are
there plans to up the ante on that too. For that
matter, why pay an ISP .. when I could just
pay for one of those Charge Card dialups?
I don't use my home connection for much of
anything ... jpgs of the GrandKids ... the
occassional interesting picture ... Christmas
Shopping. Wife is addicted to it. She and her
friends send jpgs by the gigabyte. Looks like
dialup is dead. I'm going looking for a cheap
solution, even if it is slow as can be. DSL at
$600 per year, and always on, is just stupid
when I use it for next to nothing.

johns

Last I checked, Verizon was offering really cheap DSL. Slow (for DSL), but
cheap! Don't remember exactly, but something like $20/month, inluding
e-mail.

Also, for a long time, AOL was offering highspeed service with AOL for
$25.90 per month. Basically, AOL would sell you a (slower) DSL or cable
modem connection, plus AOL service for $25.90. Now, AOL service is FREE.
However, if you order broadband through AOL, you might be able to get a
discount on it. You don't even have to run AOL software if you don't want
to. AOL's e-mail servers can be accessed with any IMAP compatible e-mail
software. So you should call AOL.

Another option is Earthlink. When I first had Verizon DSL, I learned that
earthlink was offering the SAME verizon dsl service for less money. So you
should call earthlink to see what broadband options they offer.

Good luck, -Dave

 

[The Seabat]

Geeez...I only pay $180 a year for DSL!

 

[JAD]

Seems Verizon wants to charge their dialup fee
by the minute for local calls. Right now, it is a
flat fee that is added to the ISP fee, and essentially
doubles what you pay for Internet connection.
Somehow this is being goaded along by constant
failure of dialup due to Verizon hardware failure
... kind of like the Airport "hardware problem"
when a flight is not full enough. Verizon claims
they are owed $65 million in lost revenue caused
by dialup flat fee. If they somehow manage to
get their way, and really up the dialup charge
so I'm paying nearly $400 a year, why should
I have dialup at all. Why not just DSL,

Tada! thats what they are pushing you to

or are

there plans to up the ante on that too. For that
matter, why pay an ISP .. when I could just
pay for one of those Charge Card dialups?
I don't use my home connection for much of
anything ... jpgs of the GrandKids ... the
occassional interesting picture ... Christmas
Shopping. Wife is addicted to it. She and her
friends send jpgs by the gigabyte. Looks like
dialup is dead. I'm going looking for a cheap
solution, even if it is slow as can be. DSL at
$600 per year,

I pay 360 per year for 3000mbits down 256 up(cable), DSL is about half
that(at all kinds of speed plans)

and always on, is just stupid

when I use it for next to nothing.

so pay more(allot more) so you can go through a dial sequence and then
connect at lower speeds(if at all)?
ask the wife if this makes sence!

 

[Paul]

Seems Verizon wants to charge their dialup fee
by the minute for local calls. Right now, it is a
flat fee that is added to the ISP fee, and essentially
doubles what you pay for Internet connection.
Somehow this is being goaded along by constant
failure of dialup due to Verizon hardware failure
... kind of like the Airport "hardware problem"
when a flight is not full enough. Verizon claims
they are owed $65 million in lost revenue caused
by dialup flat fee. If they somehow manage to
get their way, and really up the dialup charge
so I'm paying nearly $400 a year, why should
I have dialup at all. Why not just DSL, or are
there plans to up the ante on that too. For that
matter, why pay an ISP .. when I could just
pay for one of those Charge Card dialups?
I don't use my home connection for much of
anything ... jpgs of the GrandKids ... the
occassional interesting picture ... Christmas
Shopping. Wife is addicted to it. She and her
friends send jpgs by the gigabyte. Looks like
dialup is dead. I'm going looking for a cheap
solution, even if it is slow as can be. DSL at
$600 per year, and always on, is just stupid
when I use it for next to nothing.

johns

Using dialup for Internet access, means a long
holding time call for the phone company. It
upsets the statistics for phone switch usage,
meaning more call capacity has to be installed,
to meet the needs of all-night dialup sessions.

According to this article, they are trying to push
you to DSL. And judging by the numbers you quote,
they are pushing you pretty hard. The trick for
you, will be finding that mythical $15 per month
DSL plan.

(site uses dumb popup adverts...)
http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/personaltech/184401085

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

Using dialup for Internet access, means a
long holding time call for the phone company.

Irrelevant with modern digital exchanges.

It upsets the statistics for phone switch usage,
meaning more call capacity has to be installed,
to meet the needs of all-night dialup sessions.

Nope, not with modern digital exchanges.

According to this article, they are trying to push you to DSL.

For revenue reasons.

 

[Paul]

Irrelevant with modern digital exchanges.

Different carriers in the US are using different
approaches in their network evolution. This article
describes two approaches. (This article is a bit old,
but is the best I could find.)

http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_tale_two_networks/

Circuit switching for telephony, is provisioned based
on the percentage of users that are making calls at
any one time. The telephone system is not designed
for 100% utilization, and each part has some limitation.
The switch is distributed, there are remote concentrators,
line shelves, line groups, all connected together with a
limited number of wires/fibers. The wires connecting
this distributed system, are engineered based on call
holding time. A change in the statistics of the calls,
means changes to the switching equipment. And it makes
a convenient excuse for a rate hike.

What is surprising about this, is the timing. You would
think the "impact of AOL" on the phone network, would
have been absorbed years ago. Now, apparently Verizon
is in the middle of installing FIOS, which is a big
investment in the future for them. Anything they can do
to maintain a cash flow, until they're getting more
revenue from the new equipment, probably doesn't hurt.

Paul

 

[bob]

According to this article, they are trying to push
you to DSL. And judging by the numbers you quote,
they are pushing you pretty hard. The trick for
you, will be finding that mythical $15 per month
DSL plan.

No myth. I pay $12.95/mo for DSL. AT&T San Diego.
And the companies are ripping us off. It's an average of $5 in Europe, for
DSL.

 

[Rod Speed]

Different carriers in the US are using different approaches in
their network evolution. This article describes two approaches.
(This article is a bit old, but is the best I could find.)

http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_tale_two_networks/

This has nothing to do with what was
being discussed, a long holding time call

Circuit switching for telephony, is provisioned based
on the percentage of users that are making calls at
any one time. The telephone system is not designed
for 100% utilization, and each part has some limitation.

In theory, yes. In practice with modern digital
exchanges its no longer a real problem.

The switch is distributed, there are remote concentrators,
line shelves, line groups, all connected together with a
limited number of wires/fibers. The wires connecting this
distributed system, are engineered based on call holding time.

Not with modern digital systems which
can handle long call holding times fine.

In spades with remote concentrators which have
fibre optic connections to the parent exchange etc.

A change in the statistics of the calls,
means changes to the switching equipment.

Not with modern digital exchanges.

And it makes a convenient excuse for a rate hike.

It hasnt been a problem for a long time now.

What is surprising about this, is the timing. You
would think the "impact of AOL" on the phone
network, would have been absorbed years ago.

Yep, and that thought would be correct. Its got NOTHING
to do with long call hold times, everything to do with dsl
being a lot easier to provide on a modern system now.

Now, apparently Verizon is in the middle of installing FIOS,
which is a big investment in the future for them. Anything
they can do to maintain a cash flow, until they're getting more
revenue from the new equipment, probably doesn't hurt.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with long hold time calls, as I said.

 

[Rod Speed]

No myth. I pay $12.95/mo for DSL. AT&T San Diego.
And the companies are ripping us off.

It's an average of $5 in Europe, for DSL.

Nope.

 

[Simon]

Nope.

If you don't want a daft cap like 2gb a month then in the UK it's around
£14 at least or $26
simon

 

[johns]

I would pay a higher fee, if I had the need.
But even DSL is too slow for web TV, or
even movie downloads. Browsing advertisements,
or posting at Google, plus a little email is not
exactly a "need" for me. I feel like I'm the stupid
victem of advertising hype who needs to get out
more. I've looked at this Internet thing long enough
to realize that basically it is just a toy. I can do
just as much snail-mailing cds of grandkids
pictures. I think some enterprising coffee shop
is going to get my web business. I could just
haul my laptop to one, and browse and Breve
at the same time, and just pay by the hour.
I see people do it all the time in the big cities.
They go sit in the park, and the free local City
Wireless hands them an ip-address, and they
are online .. free gmail ... free google. Why the
heck should I pay $400 to $600 a year for
YouTube and crap like that. These ISPs and
Verizon need to come up with a more affordable
..... and a LOT MORE useful product and system
of charges, or I'll keep my $14 a month, and
they can go get jobs at Fast Food.

johns