Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: How Times Change Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 09:26:00 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows 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 11, Issue 133, Message 6 of 11 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Peter da Silva writes: > The up-front capital costs of a FAX machine, plus a second > line at the recipient end, don't help the economics much. Remember, > not that many people have these new toys, and the majority of the USPS > mail volume already gets a more favorable rate. On the face of it, this would appear to be true. But for various reasons, the FAX machine has become ubiquitous in businesses large and small. I for one refused to get sucked into such toys myself for years. But there came a point when enough people said, "I'll send this right to you. Do you have a FAX?", that I broke down and joined the crowd. Now, virtually all correspondence other than telephone and e-mail is delivered via FAX. The USPS is anachronistic, unreliable, slow, and now, expensive. Yes, FAX machines require a capital outlay. But if one already has the equipment for whatever reason, does it not make more sense to send a business letter by wire? FAX is (much) faster, more reliable, requires less handling by office personnel, and is now cheaper per unit. The post office has screwed me over just once too often. If I really expect the distant party to receive my document, I will use any method other than the US mail. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !