Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pcrat!rick
From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Which is best?
Message-ID: <620@pcrat.UUCP>
Date: 15 Nov 88 11:27:49 GMT
References: <9515@conexch.UUCP> <1125@vsi1.UUCP> <299@telebit.UUCP> <10711@cup.portal.com> <654@hscfvax.harvard.edu> <16680@onfcanim.UUCP>
Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Distribution: na
Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 27

In article <16715@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes:
>Trailblazers.  Telebit says that the current modulation technique gives
>just over 18000 bps total (on a clean line0, but some of that bandwidth
>is used up for protocol and error-control information passed between
>the modems.  Telebit quotes an actual throughput of user data of 14000
>bps, after all overhead is subtracted.  So not even Telebit claims that
>
>Anyway, I assumed that the Telebit rep was talking about 28000 bps of
>user data, exactly twice the current rate.  Thus, real throughput
>should also double, if the host can keep up.

I assumed that Telebit was still quoting raw speeds.  Page 1-1:
"Using PEP, Trailblazer can transmit or receive asynchronous data
at speeds of up to 18,000 bps over dial-up telephone lines".  We know
this number should be 14,000 from the technical discussion.  But
the marketroids will still be saying 18,000 (or 28,000???).

Yet another obfuscation technique, like disk drive manufacturers
quoting MFM formatted capacities for small drives, but unformatted
capacities for large drives.  Only this case, in reverse???


-- 
Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2
PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2
uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/.    |submission forms.
jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP19200} 12013898963 "" \r ogin: jetuucp