[LINK] Question: volume charges

[Chirgwin, Richard]

George,

But a new myth is taking shape. Wireless. Ultimately either spectrum is
limited, or the content is originally sourced to a wired network.

Skip all that: leave aside the community model for a moment, and address
instead the commercial wireless model. There isn't much of a business model
at the moment; because you have to reach back into the wired network at some
point. Work it out: an access point at (say) 25% loading costs how much to
backhaul into the wired network?

> current glass/wire networks (unused decades worth of high bandwidth 
> infrastructure) could be "lit" as far as it reaches.

This is partly urban myth, George. A lot of people like to say "this fibre
has this capacity", but what does that mean? "Whatever I want it to" is the
honest answer...
...maximum lit capacity of the fibre using current technology;
...maximum theoretical capacity of the fibre;
...maximum current capacity of the terminating equipment...
etc.

So we can expand capacity using WDM or DWDM, but that also impacts the fibre
topology; for example, DWDM-enabling a link means upgrade/change the
repeater infrastructure and so on...in other words "capacity glut" is a
statement which needs as much qualification as "Internet traffic is doubling
every six months"... 

RC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Bray [mailto:listoid@linkalarm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 21 November 2002 10:04
> To: Richard.Chirgwin@informa.com.au; link@anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Question: volume charges
> 
> 
> 
> If T$ volume billing charges are so nasty, why are telcos of every 
> colour jumping to follow their model? -> Failing US Telcos are 
> looking for revenue strategies of any kind, though it's a shame 
> they're following the unpopular model of an incumbent monopoly.
> 
> The Great Telco Myth, friends, is coming to an end. Clinging to the 
> strands of their "bandwidth is scarce and we have to charge you for 
> every last little bit" storyline, telcos globally must now wrestle 
> with the differentiation in bandwidth use on wireless networks.
> 
> Wireless, with all its foibles, could show how [free | open | 
> non-volume charged] networks can distribute high-volume media, 
> including voice and video. This not only threatens your typical telco 
> IP bandwidth revenues but also their fixed and mobile voice business.
> 
> I don't want to discourage further discourse on the subject though. 
> It's important for the market discussion to focus on how expensive 
> data delivery is over very rare, expensive glass and copper networks 
> and the misery to which you can subject your customers with 
> unintelligible measurement and billing constraints.
> 
> Linkers raising the incongruous subject of high data charges in a 
> bandwidth glut should be aware they are threatening the Great Telco 
> Myth. Please refrain from proliferation of memes suggesting the 
> current glass/wire networks (unused decades worth of high bandwidth 
> infrastructure) could be "lit" as far as it reaches.
> 
> Special Telco Offer: You too can limit the typical 6000k/1500k 
> capability in metropolitan copper to a 512k/128k volume 
> capped/billed, Big 5 Audited "broadband user not server" account. Our 
> Australian broadband packages maintain high levels of complexity and 
> expense for the user while keeping alive the scarcity of bandwidth 
> myth. If you've got 95% share of the profits from your market, call 
> today for your free "Unlit Glass is Gold" pamphlet.
> 
> At 4:08 PM +1000 19/11/02, Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> >a) information asymmetry;
> 
> Volume billing makes everyone, the customer and the routers, work 
> harder. Building yet more intricacy to make minute measurements makes 
> the whole issue slower and more complex. At some point it will turn 
> the other way and broadband will be a flat fee no matter what device 
> you use or what you consume. Until then, you should keep thinking 
> that the small amount of bandwidth you use today is very valuable and 
> expensive to move around.
> 
> >One of the people Ms McKenzie interviewed said all we get in 
> Australia is
> >fast dialup instead of true broadband. Maybe so; but I 
> wouldn't mind a fast
> >dialup service if it were billed accordingly.
> >
> >Richard Chirgwin
> 
> In the parliamentary wireless bb report they used a value of 64k/64k 
> for common analysis between mobile and fixed wireless.
> 
> It's conceivable that non-commercial open wireless networks will 
> educate broadband buyers to the real value of IP access. I certainly 
> hope we get away from the wireline restrictions currently hindering 
> broadband here.
> 
> 	George
> 
> 
> -- 
> George Bray
> Tech Trek - Australian Mobile Internet Survey & Showcase
> Ambassador, Internet Industry Association
> Web: http://www.techtrek.tv
>