Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!rutgers!uwvax!tank!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V32 will smash TB+ in a year (?)
Message-ID: <14508@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 12 Nov 88 02:42:52 GMT
References: <10805@cup.portal.com> <1417@percival.UUCP> <11078@cup.portal.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 61

In article <11078@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com
(David Michael McCord) writes:
>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?

This site is likely to buy additional high-speed (probably not 9600 bps,
and whether V.32 or otherwise is irrelevant) modems in the future (near
or otherwise).  That cost is as yet indeterminate and irrelevant to the
decision we made several months ago, just as the cost of that decision
(but not the decision itself) is irrelevant to which modems we might buy
then.

>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, 
>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?

You may fume all you wish, but the fact is that those netadmins bought
their TB modems for their own reasons, not for yours.  It remains to be
seen whether we will `have to buy' V.32 modems to `talk to the rest of
the world'---incidentally, it seems far more likely that we shall have
to buy instead more SURAnet and NSFnet equipment to talk to the
interesting part of the world; SNA and X.25 are really rather boring:
TCP/IP is `where it's at' now, and ISO/OSI (which is notably not the
same as X.25, though they are associated) is being hawked as the wave
of the future, even as FDDI is quietly encouraging another approach
entirely---or whether we will go off in some completely unanticipated
direction.  The point is that those who made a decision six months ago
made a decision that saved them money, and saved more money (in terms
of phone bills) than they might have lost by not buying V.32 modems in
the first place.  They can buy V.32 modems in the future, using future
dollars, for less true total cost than they paid in the past.

>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?

We only had one application.  Yes, we were forced; we did not mind,
and we will not mind changing, if that proves necessary.

>What about the possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the
>cost of that?

Where are the economies?  If they remain a year down the road though we
buy now, we have already won.  The dollars of 1989 are cheaper than the
dollars of 1988.  So say the economists.  The TB+ saved us more value
in 1988 dollars than we might spend in 1989 dollars.

>... if you seriously believe that v.32 will not be the dominant
>modulation technique for high speed modems a year from now ....

We seriously care not what may be dominant a year from now.  We can
afford to throw away the TB+ modems any time; they have already paid
for themselves.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris