Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!peregrine!zardoz!conexch!root
From: root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: V.32 will dominate the marketplace (Was: Re: Which is best?)
Summary: V.32 will soon become the 9600 baud standard.
Message-ID: <11136@conexch.UUCP>
Date: 2 Nov 88 14:38:30 GMT
References: <9515@conexch.UUCP> <1125@vsi1.UUCP> <299@telebit.UUCP> <10711@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Consultants' Exchange, Orange County, CA.  (714) 842-6348
Lines: 69

In article <10711@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:
>I don't know why this conference isn't named comp.dcom.telebit-lovers.  It 
>ought to be.

Until now, the Telebit modem has been the only _inexpenxive_ high speed modem
available that would support the uucp protocol.  I see that as the chief
reason for it being embraced so keenly here.  

>The Telebit 
>product does not even support synchronous transmission, not to mention the 
>disadvantages of getting yourself locked into a modem vendor's proprietary 
>modulation technique.

Agreed.  Being locked into a proprietary modulation scheme is a mistake.
Sites with Trail Blazers will find the high speed capability of their 
modems useful only for communication with others who jumped at the 
Telebit half price offer.  Now that the new Rockwell V.32 chipset is
available, there is little doubt that cheap _Full-Duplex_ 9600 bps modems
will begin to dominate the marketplace.  Better technology always 
supplants inferior technology, if it is affordable. (have you noticed
the price of 300 baud modems today.)

Unfortunately, Half-duplex Trail Blazers are the defacto standard for
moving news.  That is going to retard the rate of acceptance of V.32 modems
among UNIX (tm) usenet sites.

>if you invest in Telebit or USR, you are throwing your money away.

Although this is a bit of an over simplification of the situation, I
basically agree.  The exception being the site which pays long distance
telephone charges and dedicates the Trail Blazer to moving news.  Those
sites have probably paid for their Trail Blazers in lower phone charges.
But, the sites which intend to user their Trail Blazers for general
world wide communications are going to be disappointed.
 
>Speaking as a data and voice telecommunications professional with many years 
>of experience and the salary to back it up, I say that V.32 modems are going 
>to smash the vendor-proprietary types in the marketplace within a year.  Why?  
>
>if you invest 
>in V.32, you are still going to be able to use it five years from now; long 
>after the HST and Telebit schemes fade away and disappear due to lack of 
>market support.

Agreed.  I hear Fastcomm has recently introduced a V.32 modem with a list
price of ~$700.  That should start the V.32 ball rolling.

>The USENET community has done itself a disservice to let itself fall into the 
>trap it is now in.  It should be fun to watch as you netadmin types have to 
>replace your equipment with new modems, be they V.32 or whatever PEP 
>variation is officially adopted by the CCITT (hint: it will not be compatible 
>with your current Trailblazers).  I am glad I am not going to have to stand 
>up in front of my managers and ask for more money to redress my past bad 
>decisions.

I would be very interested in a more detailed explaination of this "hint".

I have heard that Telebit and USR are jointly proposing one standard to
the CCITT which will support both of their modulation schemes.  I hadn't
heard that it wouldn't be compatible with current PEP modulation, as you 
imply.

Larry Dighera

-- 
USPS: The Consultants' Exchange, PO Box 12100, Santa Ana, CA  92712
TELE: (714) 842-6348: BBS (N81); (714) 842-5851: Xenix guest account (E71)
UUCP: conexch Any ACU 2400 17148425851 ogin:-""-ogin:-""-ogin: nuucp
UUCP: ...!uunet!turnkey!conexch!root || ...!trwrb!ucla-an!conexch!root