FCC doing it again...

[Robert E. Stampfli]

>What does this lecture have to do with modems?  Simply
>this: a user of a modem is perturbing the traffic patterns
>in a big way.  The number of calls made are probably about
>the same, but the holding time of a call is now orders of
>magnitude more than the average projected holding time.

No.  I have a phone line with a modem connected to it.  I receive 5-6
calls per day and the average holding time is probably in the 1-2 minute
range.  The point I am trying to make is this: although statistically modem
lines may have a longer holding time than voice lines, to base a rate on this
fact would be as ludicrous as, say, charging psychiatrists more for a line
than opthalmologists because statistics say they talk more.  In fact, just
about anyone with a monitored burglar alarm would be similarly affected, and
you don't seriously believe burglar alarm modems tie up central office
equipment significantly (Mind you, I am not talking about their effect on
police lines here).  No, if this is really an issue that is causing BOC
executives to pull out their hair, they should attempt to solve the problem
directly: get their Utilities Commission to allow them to to institute
time/distance charging.  If there is an unlimited-use provision in the
tarriffs, I think it is only reasonable to expect high usage customers take
to advantage of it, and this is just as valid an option for the modem user
as for the family with 3 teenagers.  To try to discriminate based on the
use of a modem is possible because those supporting such maneuvers realize
it would be a public relations disaster to try to resolve the problem the
straight-forward way.  There are more equitable solutions, though, and
these should be the ones pursued if this is really a problem.
-- 
Rob Stampfli	/ att.com!stampfli (uucp at work) / kd8wk at w8cqk (packet radio)
614-864-9377	/ osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp at home)