Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Discounts For Deaf: My Solution
Message-ID: <8838@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 90 10:39:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 28
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 425, Message 8 of 8


>Yes, but consider something else that goes on on the net -- batched,
>high-speed data transfer. I understand that there is frequent need for
>interactive "conversation", but a lot of the time someone just needs
>to send a message and may or may not even need a reply.

Some TDDs do have a "memory" option that allows users to store fairly
short messages (2000 chars or so) and send the text in a burst (at 6
or 30 cps, depending).  I doubt anyone knows whether this feature is
actually used much; I myself don't, but I probably type faster than
most people.

Instead of saying whether this is a good idea or not, let me just turn
the question around.  Why don't all you hearies invest a little money
in something to store your voice and play it back at high speed?  I
believe there are commercial devices for high-speed intelligible
playback, which some blind people use to maximize their information
input.  Or even better, add a compression encoder so that whenever you
call someone with the corresponding decoder, you can squeeze your
entire soliloquy into a three-second burst.  Add encryption for free.

I believe the arguments for and against such a scheme (cost,
convenience, compatibility, etc) are identical to those for and
against batched TDD data transfer.  Conclusions, if any, left as an
exercise.


Ken