Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!sceard!mrm
From: mrm@sceard.UUCP (M.R.Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V32 will smash TB+ in a year (?)
Summary: state of the art
Message-ID: <848@sceard.UUCP>
Date: 10 Nov 88 18:02:44 GMT
References: <10805@cup.portal.com> <1417@percival.UUCP> <11078@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: mrm@sceard.UUCP (0040-M.R.Murphy)
Distribution: na
Organization: Sceard Systems, Inc., San Marcos, CA  92069
Lines: 52

In article <11078@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:
[stuff deleted and taken out of context...]
|
|Perhaps a few questions will clarify my position.
|
|How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
|near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
|speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  
|What is that cost going to be?
I expect in the not too distant future to junk all of the MODEMS that we
have because we will be using digital lines from our phriendly phone company
for data transmission.  MODEM=MODulator/DEModulator, remember:-)
|
|What if you are a new site, just starting to use uucp; and because all the 
|other uucp users talk telebit, you find you have to buy one too.  Yet, 
I don't have to buy one. I could get by with the longer transmission times
associated with 1200/2400/9600 modems. Not so well on crummy lines, but
ok.
|because you have need to talk to the rest of the world, you have to buy 
|another modem type (v.32 again) for those applications.  What is your opinion 
|going to be regarding the original netadmins who bought telebit?  Aren't you 
|being forced to buy a modem and dedicate it to a particular application 
|rather than using a single type in ALL your applications?  What about the 
|possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the cost of that?
|
We don't use a single type of computer in all of our applications either.
Or, for that matter, a single programming language.
|My position was, and remains, that there are many hidden costs to the 
|trailblazers.  Maybe *you* haven't had to pay them...yet.  But you will.
The costs aren't hidden. I can junk it now and go to a new technology,
and I am still ahead. And, as a small business, we paid the bill, not
our purchasing/accounts payable/finance/... departments. It was money
out-of-pocket and still a good deal.
|
|
|Both v.32 (echo cancellation) and PEP are old technology, so I think it is a 
|little silly to drag in the phrase "state of the art", because it doesn't 
|apply to either.  And if you seriously believe that v.32 will not be the 
|dominant modulation technique for high speed modems a year from now, or 
|decide to close your eyes and ignore the situation, I suppose you are 
|entitled to do so.  Obviously, I disagree with that, and time will tell whose 
|opinion corresponds more closely to reality, and who responded in a more 
|effective manner.
|
|David@cup portal.com

See the first comment. MODEMs are DOOMED. DIGITAL transmission methods
for DIGITAL data. No more obsolete ANALOG transmission 1/2-).
--
Mike Murphy  Sceard Systems, Inc.  544 South Pacific St.  San Marcos, CA  92069
ARPA: sceard!mrm@nosc.MIL   BITNET: MURPHY@UCLACH
UUCP: ucsd!sceard!mrm     INTERNET: mrm%sceard.UUCP@ucsd.ucsd.edu