Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Courier HST rebuttal
Keywords: HST BLAZER
Message-ID: <17585@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: 26 Feb 89 01:54:06 GMT
References: <415@studsys.mu.edu> <3004@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <4077@alvin.mcnc.org>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 24

In article <4077@alvin.mcnc.org> felstein@mcnc.org.UUCP (Bruce M. Felstein) writes:
>I think that you are misinformed as to the way the HST operates. There is
>now an HST that is FULL V.32 and HST. This will be available to the public
>within the next several months. It is, in fact, faster than the Trailblazer.

If it really implements V.32, it will be 9600 bps full duplex.  Since uucp
sends data in only one direction at a time, you will get 960 * 64/70 cps
absolute maximum data throughput. (64/70 allows for packet header overhead).

The Trailblazer runs 1440 cps max in one direction, and doesn't have to
send the uucp packet headers.  So theoretical througput is considerably
higher then the HST.  And I, and many others, know that the real througput
is well above 960 cps.

> The HST uses class 5 MNP.

So what?  The Trailblazer handles error control just fine.  And any
compression provided by MNP is useless when sending already-compressed
news batches.  (The Trailblazer also has built-in compression, likewise
useless for news).

Please explain how any V.32 compliant modem can possibly perform as
well as the Trailblazer sending compressed news batches.  Even if the
V.32 provided uucp protocol spoofing, it would be slower.