[ale] Re-send: Opinions on Cable versus DSL

Glenn C. Lasher Jr. glasher at nycap.rr.com
Thu Jul 26 07:13:26 EDT 2001


On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Wandered Inn wrote:

> Yeah, well, the BellSouth folks I talked to, either were just stupid, or
> they thought I was.  First they told me they didn't have enough IPs.
> Then I was told it was a quote 'security' solution.  I had one guy over
> there tell me that you can't give a static IP.  I didn't even argue with
> him.

Want the real reason?

Static IP's are worth more money, even though they are easier to
implement.  The telcos are famous for this sort of thing.  I don't know if
Bell South had done what New York Telephone (later Nynex, then Bell
Atlantic, and now Verizon) had done, but for the longest time, there was
an extra charge for the ability to use DTMF for dialing your phone instead
of pulse dialing.  I refused to pay it, because I knew that the telco
could implement DTMF for less than pulse.  In 1995, the New York Public
Service Comission told them to put it right, and then I started using
DTMF.

So it is with static IP's.  They're easier to implement, but the
broadbanders can get away with charging $300/month for them, versus
$40/month for a dynamic IP.  The reason is that a static IP is more
valuable to the end user due to its ability to support servers that can be
more readily found.  Dynamic DNS, however, has made this largely a moot
point.

-- 
glasher at nycap.rr.com
After 163 days, Verizon still couln't deliver Telocity DSL.

--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.





More information about the Ale mailing list