|
|
| Author |
Message |
aruba
|
|
Cutting Costs
| 
Apr 27 19:03 UTC 1998 |
Grex's costs went up quite a bit when we got our ISDN line, and when the
phone rates increased at the beginning of the year. It would, of course,
be best if our income increased to match our improved connectivity, but so
far that has not happened. It may still, of course, and I hope it does.
But I think it would be prudent to consider cutting our costs as well.
Mostly, we have been very careful (read *slow*) about increasing Grex's
level of operation, so improvements have been anticipated and well
received. This has helped us to avoid any white elephants.
But we all saw the nosedive that M-Net's finances took when they found
themselves with huge expenses and a shrinking membership. While we are
*not* in that kind of trouble, we also should remember that example,
and not think that we will always be able to find the money to cover as
much service as we'd like to provide.
So post suggestions for cutting Grex's costs here.
|
| 83 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 83:
|
Apr 27 19:08 UTC 1998 |
The first thing that comes to mind is dropping a phone line or two. According
to scott, the last phone line in our hunt group only gets used for about 15
minutes a day. If we dropped it, that would save us $18.46 a month (if I did
my calculations correctly), or about $220 per year. It costs $42 to install
a new line, so we would have to drop it for at least 3 months in order to save
money. After that, if we decide we need it again, we could have it
re-installed and still be ahead.
|
scg
|
|
response 2 of 83:
|
Apr 27 19:24 UTC 1998 |
I would also suggest dropping the ICNet connection, which we aren't using at
all. We're paying for two phone lines it uses.
There are also some longer term things we might want to look at, such as
switching to non-Centrex ISDN lines, which are cheaper.
|
scott
|
|
response 3 of 83:
|
Apr 27 19:30 UTC 1998 |
I need to work on stats, but it looks like we aren't even using the last line.
|
mta
|
|
response 4 of 83:
|
Apr 28 21:24 UTC 1998 |
It sounds then, like we could drop 3 line swithout much impact on
anyone. I think that would be the best place to start.
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 83:
|
Apr 30 07:08 UTC 1998 |
Would antone like to make a case for keeping the ICNET connection?
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 83:
|
Apr 30 10:58 UTC 1998 |
At the time we got the ISDN connection, I can recall two reasons
being given for keeping the IC-NET connection: (1) For backup if
the ISDN went down, and (2) for offloading certain kinds of
internet traffic, such as mail.
I don't have a case to make one way or the other, but maybe those
are issues to bear in mind in discussing whether or not to keep
the connection.
|
krj
|
|
response 7 of 83:
|
Apr 30 15:25 UTC 1998 |
Wasn't there a thought that we would route mail through it?
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 83:
|
Apr 30 18:58 UTC 1998 |
Yes, as I just said.
|
mta
|
|
response 9 of 83:
|
Apr 30 19:16 UTC 1998 |
I think the fact that we didn't use the ICNet connection for backup during
our recent ISDN line troubles suggests that it isn't anyone's first choice.
That leaves the mail question --
|
dang
|
|
response 10 of 83:
|
May 1 14:56 UTC 1998 |
I think we were expecting the ISDN to be more saturated than it is. At this
point, there wouldn't really be a gain by offloading mail to another link,
because our main one isn't full. I say get rid of it.
|
dpc
|
|
response 11 of 83:
|
May 3 20:11 UTC 1998 |
Ditch the ICNet connection and one phone line *per month* until we get
complaints about busy signals.
I'm quite surprised that our huge increase in speed hasn't caused
a big influx of bux. But since it hasn't, aruba is right to emphasize
cutting costs.
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 83:
|
May 4 01:06 UTC 1998 |
The speed increase is pretty recent. I think that it will pay off
eventually in the form of more membership income, but I'm not
surprised that the effect is delayed. New users seem to be popping
up in the conferences at a greater rate, probably because more
people are sticking around rather than being turned off immediately
by Grex's sluggishness the way they used to be. Eventually, some of
these users will turn into paying members.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 13 of 83:
|
May 4 17:45 UTC 1998 |
Just forget about killing one phone line per month. If there are some metrics
that indicate that one or two lines are totally unutilized, then maybe cut
back if finances require it. But I'll oppose any move to make grex a
telnet-access-only system.
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 83:
|
May 4 18:00 UTC 1998 |
Certainly, I agree. No one is proposing that, and I think all of us would
rather see the dial-ins full than cut them. But if we're paying for them and
they're not being used, we're wasting money.
|
scott
|
|
response 15 of 83:
|
May 4 18:42 UTC 1998 |
one or two lines would be easy; the average use is in the neighborhood of 4
lines at any time, with peaks up to 10 and rarely is it over ten. I'm still
waiting to accumulate certain stats befor I make a recommendation.
|
krj
|
|
response 16 of 83:
|
May 4 19:32 UTC 1998 |
(I thought the idea was to cut back one line per month and STOP when we
started seeing a significant busy signal problem at peak dial-in load.)
|
rtgreen
|
|
response 17 of 83:
|
May 5 02:49 UTC 1998 |
If we cut back lines until we see a problem, we've cut too far, and we'll
have to pay an installation fee to bring the 'one too many' line back.
Telco will brobably charge us a generic service change fee even to cut
each line off. Better to study the stats, and then cut what we must in
one change order.
As for how many is enough? I'd like to see our last modem line occupied
between 1 and 5 percent of the time. That would mean between 15 and 75
minutes per day. I would also like to see each instance of 'all lines
occupied' last no more than five minutes. If both conditions are
satisfied, I would say we have exactly enough lines.
|
valerie
|
|
response 18 of 83:
|
May 5 23:52 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 19 of 83:
|
May 6 10:59 UTC 1998 |
Valerie, does the fixwait log data cover *all* connections, or just those
present when the log data is collected (every minute?)?
|
aruba
|
|
response 20 of 83:
|
May 6 16:26 UTC 1998 |
I think it doesn't make financial sense to keep more lines than we need
indefinitely. We'd all like to see more local users, and hopefully we'll get
them. I think that if scott's data confirms that the last line or two is
never used, it makes sense to eliminate them and bring them back if and when
we get more dialers-in. Remember that we only have to take them down for 3
months in order to save money.
Perhaps before we act, though, we should agree to what we think is a
reasonable usage. Then we can decide how many lines to take down and when
to put them back. Now that I think about it, it makes a lot of sense to
decide that, and then figure out how many lines we need.
|
keesan
|
|
response 21 of 83:
|
May 6 16:35 UTC 1998 |
I get the impression that many locals now get free access to something
at work that lets them telnet to grex, and that this may be an accelerating
trend. I dial in, but hardly anyone else seems to.
|
robh
|
|
response 22 of 83:
|
May 6 19:21 UTC 1998 |
I telnet in from work, but from home I dial direct. I'd dial direct
from work, too, if it were local. >8)
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 83:
|
May 6 19:46 UTC 1998 |
Re #21: Well it's clearly not true that "hardly anyone" dials in. If it
were, then the modem data would show that.
|
davel
|
|
response 24 of 83:
|
May 6 21:17 UTC 1998 |
I have access to telnet from work, but for some reason Grex always terminates
the connection as soon as it's established. mdw looked for, and identified
one such occasion, but found (if I recall) that as far as the logs showed it
was just a normal, albeit brief connection. Nonetheless, I really have no
telnet access. (I wonder if there are others out there with this problem,
who lack dialup access & so never come back.)
|