Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.rumor,net.news.group
Subject: High-speed modems for backbone
Message-ID: <1251@burl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-May-86 15:58:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.1251
Posted: Mon May 12 15:58:57 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 02:41:23 EDT
References: <575@bu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.followup:6260 net.rumor:2292 net.news.group:5542
Summary: 

In article <575@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes:
>On the other hand, I still feel it's frustrating that a lot of this
>would be unnecessary if the backbone sites *required* higher speed
>connections, are the 2400 (and 4800, 9600) baud modems that now work
>on asynch/voice lines really that hard to use effectively? It seems
>from what people say about costs they could pay for themselves
>quickly. What's the problem? If it's initial costs maybe we could pass
>the hat around the net. If we could solve the problem with technology
>why bother with all these politics etc?

There is a rumor that some of these high-speed modems actually work
well enough for heavy usage, and that their packetizing protocols don't
cause uucp to crawl like the proverbial snail.  Can anyone confirm this?

Seriously, talk about high-speed modems and protocols flies around the
backbone mailing list continually -- most of them seem to be sent back
in disgust because they don't work as advertised or will not work well
with uucp.

Just wanted to let you know that the backbone is constantly searching
for ways to lower costs and boldly go where no backbone has gone before.
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua  watmath ]!clyde!rcj