Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!ptsfa!pbhyc!jdf
From: jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: baud vs. bit/sec.
Message-ID: <634@pbhyc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Apr-87 15:25:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: pbhyc.634
Posted: Tue Apr 28 15:25:47 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Apr-87 02:14:49 EDT
References: <8704220426.AA03311@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: jdf@pbhyc.UUCP (Jack Fine)
Distribution: world
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 22


Ummm... I think I agree with most of the explanations I have seen here on
what a bit versus a baud is.  Though I am not sure if what I think I read
is what I think I understand.  Understand?  Well anyway I have been
advocate for sometime (teachine datacomm) of trying to get people to drop
the baud term when referring to data communications.  Yes a 300 bps modem's
signial is modulated at 300 baud per second times one bit per second
giving you 300 bps.  However, 1200 bps modems divide each second into 600
parts which is done by a method called four-level phase shift keying.  Each
part then can then hold two bits of data.  This is at 600 baud and if you
multiply 600 times the 2 bits you get the 1200 bps transfer rate.  With
2400 bps modems you use a 16-level phase shift keying (still at 600 baud)
which allows 4 bits of data per baud.  So I second the vote for dropping
the term baud when used to refer to electronic data transmission.

What may be better is the characters per second.  With most transmissions
it takes 10 bits for a character of data.  So 1200 or 2400 divided by 10
would give 120 or 240 characters per second which has more meaning to me as
a user.  Now if we can just get the modem companies to advertise 240
character modems.....

Jack