Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!killer!texbell!bellcore!clyde!watmath!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Which is best?
Message-ID: <16680@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: 6 Nov 88 13:21:13 GMT
References: <9515@conexch.UUCP> <1125@vsi1.UUCP> <299@telebit.UUCP> <10711@cup.portal.com> <654@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Distribution: na
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 20

Even if V.32 modems were available today at the same price as a Trailblazer,
and compatibility issues were fixed so that any V.32 modem would talk to
any other, the Trailblazer would still be the better choice for uucp.

Its throughput is 1400 cps, not 960, and the uucp spoofing helps get
real transfer rates that are close to the maximum.  The V.32 spec will
never match this.

Of course, faster modems will come along, making the existing Trailblazers
obsolete, but then they'll make the V.32 modems obsolete at the same time.
How will you explain to your boss that you spent more money for a lower-
performance modem in the name of "standards" and then had to replace it
at the same time anyway?

By the way, I was talking to someone from Telebit at SIGGRAPH this summer.
They have apparently already demonstrated 28000 bps on a voice channel,
using a more powerful signal processor than is in current Trailblazers.
So it's quite possible that in a few years the modem of choice for upgrading
from a Trailblazer will be another Telebit product.  It will likely talk
to the existing Trailblazers too.