Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: ny.nysernet,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Ithaca POP for PSI needs PEP : -) Message-ID: Date: 20 Jun 91 16:32:48 GMT References: <1991Jun19.015353.717@shaman.com> <1991Jun19.174421.7181@uu.psi.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 19 In article <1991Jun19.174421.7181@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: > There is little differnce between PEP and V.32 signalling related > to performance on local phone lines. Given that PEP is inferior > technology for interactive applications and SLIP/PPP, it will > take more than public or private bullying. It's got nothing to do with bullying. There are many reasons for people to be using the PEP protocol. That may be all they have, for example. Or they may be calling from an exchange with older equipment (particularly common in non-Bell areas) or through a PBX so PEP does provide better performance on their lines. In either case, it would take additional expenditures (buying modems or renting a direct or FX line from the phone company) to use V.32 effectively After all, if price was no object we would still be using UUNET. Don't forget that's PSI's main edge over UUNET/Alternet. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"