Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!acorn!moncam!harry
From: harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Electronic Newspapers
Summary: CABLE??? WHAT CABLE???
Message-ID: <182@marvin.moncam.co.uk>
Date: 8 May 89 16:52:20 GMT
References: <8905031352.AA16555@mica.berkeley.edu> <174@marvin.moncam.co.uk> <2907@viscous.sco.COM>
Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 24

In article <2907@viscous.sco.COM>, evanh@sco.COM (Evan A.C. Hunt) writes:

> 	We can send TV signals around on cables, and that takes
> pretty impressive bandwidth--thirty pictures a second.  I'm sure

It may come as a shock to many Americans that cable teevee is still in
its infancy, compared to the telephone network, and in Europe it is
still *very* much a novelty... thus what we have is NOT yet as
accessible as the telephone; okay, I know not everyone has a 'phone,
but more people haver 'phones than cable, and I have a feeling that
cable is more expensive than 'phones, so it's liable to stay that
way for some time.  If this is the way things are going, and comparing
it with the telephone network, it is, then yes, that's the way to do it.
However, as far as a public network goes, we're going to be stuck with
'phones for as long as it takes governments (or private companies) to
go over to optical cables or whatever's fastest.

I thought we were talking now and everyone, not tomorrow and the
select few.
-- 
  ,---.'\ 
 (  /@ )/    Nothing is true.        
   /( _/  )  Everything is permitted.
   \,`---'