Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!apple!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!pyramid!prls!mips!sultra!dtynan
From: dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Load adjusting modems -- can it be done?
Keywords: trailblazer, half duplex, v.32
Message-ID: <2593@sultra.UUCP>
Date: 22 Oct 88 03:52:21 GMT
References: <1653@vedge.UUCP>
Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 30

In article <1653@vedge.UUCP>, lai@vedge.UUCP (David Lai) writes:
> 
> In other words, under an essentially half duplex operation (ie. one way file
> transfer, or typical user on a keyboard), statistically more data will be sent
> one way than the other, so allocate more bands to that channel.  When the
> load characteristics are essentially full duplex (ie. two way file transfers),
> then split the available bandwidth between the two channels.
> 
> Sounds do-able, doesn't it?  Or am I forgetting something fundamental about
> signal processing or telephony?  Anyone have comments?
> -- 
> David Lai (vedge!lai@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu || ...watmath!onfcanim!vedge!lai)

This was basically my argument, as well.  I think what's important here, is not
whether the TB's can do it *now*, but that they could do it in the future, if
they wanted.  By using a static allocation of bandwidth, as USR does, this is
never possible.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the given bandwidth
split that USR has will invariably be the *wrong* one...

Using 512 bands like Telebits does is a real sweet idea.  Putting the burden
of modulation and line-selection in software, is even better.  Now we can
upgrade things without a soldering iron (:-)

If one looks at that biased trash published by USR, one will notice that the
demonstration cases were all BBS's.  Not a word about 'uucp'-style or 'batch'
transfers.
						- Der
-- 
Reply:	dtynan@sultra.UUCP		(Der Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{mips,pyramid}!sultra!dtynan
	Cast a cold eye on life, on death.  Horseman, pass by...    [WBY]