Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!datapg!sewilco
From: sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: FCC doing it again...
Message-ID: <23679@datapg.MN.ORG>
Date: 30 Nov 89 02:21:15 GMT
References: <1989Nov28.011514.4193@virtech.uucp> <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU>
Reply-To: sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon)
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN
Lines: 20

< A modem phone call is not the same as a voice phone call.  Modem calls are
< continuously transmitting tones on the line, while a voice call has lots 
<...

True for the presently used modems.  Just the reverse for low speeds in an
all-digital system.  A 3KHz voice transmission requires about 6000 bits per
second (OK, maybe 4800bps?), so less than 6000 bps can be multiplexed better
than voice.  The comparison is affected by pauses in speed, full versus half
duplex (few humans speak and listen simultaneously), etc.

Extra charges for "modems" could be applied as well to "modems" on digital
networks where the "modems" are actually less overhead than equivalent
voice circuits.  More profit for less effort.

A lot can be done with 1200, 2400, or 4800 bps half duplex.  Of course,
we all want to work faster...
-- 
Scot E. Wilcoxon  sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG    {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress 	 UNIX masts & rigging  +1 612-825-2607    uunet!datapg!sewilco
	I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.