Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Starlan/Ethernet compatibility
Message-ID: <3815@phri.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jun 89 14:23:09 GMT
References: <2009@wasatch.utah.edu> <2230006@hprnd.HP.COM> <1989Jun21.155639.21593@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 20

In <1989Jun21.155639.21593@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> You know, I'd really like to see at least one vendor reply to that question
> with "we won't, since we think twisted-pair Ethernet is a dumb idea and
> totally unnecessary".

	Why do you say that?  Aside from the fact that I don't believe it
can possibly work (just like I don't believe it's possible to build 9600
baud dial-up modems :-)), I think it's a grand idea.  Makes good use of
existing wiring and related technology.  Not to mention trivial advantages
like there are conduits set in the concrete in our building going to every
room designed for phone lines.  I can almost always snake another run of
4-pair twisted phone line through one of them if I have to, but running an
Ethernet tranciever cable means knocking holes in cinderblock walls, and
even RG-fifty-whateveritis can somtimes mean getting the drills and chisels
out.  What's your beef with twisted-pair Ethernet?
-- 
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu
"The connector is the network"