Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!adm!husc6!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: laird@slum.mv.com (Laird Heal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Message-ID: <12662@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 90 18:37:19 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: laird@slum.mv.com
Organization: dis
Lines: 31
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 684, Message 1 of 11


>Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the
>operating company) of a data call versus a voice call. 

>	1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only
>be that way until it reaches the C.O.

Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that with mature technology
the voice call should be more costly than a data call.

This is because of the simple nature of the modem tones as compared to
the less predictable modulations of human voices.  Furthermore,
correct me if I am mistaken but the back-channel of the current
listener still sends any background noise, from breathing to, in the
case of U. S.  Sprint, pins dropping.  The exception listed was for
cable transmission where the number of circuits was strictly limited:
so that's what the modem 'guard tones' are for?

A modem's tones should be much more predictable than a human's voice,
and generally any compression algorithm or sampling could clock much
lower for data transmission.  The most preferable from the Telephone
Company's standpoint would be direct digital transmission
point-to-point because they could bypass analog devices, and measure
data throughput.

It does seem another case of paying the utility more for service that
costs them less; can someone prove to me that touch-tone service
actually does cost the phone company more today than ol' reliable?


Laird Heal  laird@slum.MV.COM   (Salem, NH)	+1 603 898 1406