[30195] in North American Network Operators' Group
Telco NOC vs. Internet NOCs (WAS: Wanted: Clueful Individual @
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Jul 18 00:10:34 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000717235047.00b7f420@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:06:53 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <0127E258EE29D3118A0F00609765B44847CA11@subnet-gw-00053.sit
estream.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 10:14 AM 7/17/00 -0700, Karyn Ulriksen wrote:
>
>Out of curiousity, how does the telco world handle this? When some one
>signs up for MCI longdistance, I assume that on some calls they will cross
>off the MCI network (and potentially though several others) that will be
>piled mile high in static. The customers will complain about their
>connection to their respective local and long distance companies. But I
>believe it isn't an option to contact the networks that they may transit
>mid-stream. However, some QC must be in place to achieve some level of
>consistancy to get that expected "pin drop" quality we've apparently come to
>take for granted...
The telco world is completely different. *EVERY* call has an "origination"
and a "termination", and *EVERY* termination is *PAID*.
So when it goes from you (user) to AT&T to MCI to Telstra to friend (user),
you pay AT&T, AT&T pays MCI, and MCI pays Telstra. (I made that sequence
up. I doubt a call would be routed like that, but you get the point.)
So, if there is a problem inside MCI, AT&T will hound them about it. Even
though no "user" is paying MCI, AT&T *is* paying them, and has every right
to get upset if quality is not up to par.
Plus, the user has no idea of routing in the phone system. There is no
traceroute, there are no in-addrs, etc., etc. As a user, you call AT&T,
and that is all you know. But that is okay, because AT&T takes full
responsibility for end-to-end connectivity. If the call does not get
through, they may say "MCI is having a problem", but they will work on it
for you.
Some may say this is why the telcos work better than the
Internet. Personally, I think it is kinda silly. The way the system is
laid out, it costs a lot more to bill a call than connect a call.
It takes a lot more to track the minutes of a call and all the various
tariffs, interconnections, time-of-day billing, billing cycles, interest /
late fees, mail out a bill every month, etc., etc., etc., than it takes for
a few switches to route a call over fiber which costs nearly nothing anyway.
Remember, typical pricing for trans-continental US fiber, when buying dark
or very large IRUs, is a few places to the right of the decimal point per
month per DS0-mile - or *at most* $3/month for a cross country DS0, and for
most big carriers it is orders of magnitude less. And the telcos tend to
get a wee bit more than $3/month revenue off that DS0. ;)
Of course, there is cap-ex for the switches & fiber lighting equipment -
which is a huge expense. Plus people to operate it and stuff like
that. But the point is, it costs more to bill it than to actually *do* it.
I do not think we want to see the Internet go that way. Do you?
I am not saying this is a valid way to run the Internet, just that it is
not how I would like to see the Internet run. Perhaps my view / opinions
are silly or impractical, but that is how I feel. What do all of you think?
>Karyn
TTFN,
patrick
