Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!rnms1!dave
From: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant))
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Electronic Newspapers
Message-ID: <6152@pdn.paradyne.com>
Date: 6 Jun 89 12:57:35 GMT
References: <2487.2489FC06@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>
Sender: news@pdn.paradyne.com
Reply-To: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron )
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 65

In article <2487.2489FC06@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes:

[lots of good stuff deleted]

DATA RATE QUESTIONS

>However, FAX provides an interesting index of graphic transmition.
>FAX can move three pages a minute, that's a 8 1/2" x 11" page, or one
>half of a tabloid page or one fourth of a broadsheet page. So a
>broadsheet page, complete with pictures, would take 1 1/3 minutes to
>transmit with current FAX techniques. 

One should be careful in using FAX estimates. Most current use of fax
is for LOW density transmition (of char data no less), not pictures.
[there is a company, in fact, who makes forms specifically designed to
be "nice" to the fax's compression algorithm.
Fax used for "real" pictures (which is what you want) would be considerably
slowwwer than fax used for a typed contract page.

UTILITY QUESTIONS

>Nevertheless, with distributed networking where the source system
>distributes a five minute file to, say, 100 other systems each of whom
>distribute to another 100, etc., a very few tiers can move the data at
>9600 over modems to very many users very quickly.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whoa now, before you start using the phone system for "broadcast" type
work, remember that the trunk lines are a shared resource. Many "plans"
like this work only if just a few % of the people use them. That's
no reason not to do it, but means that "everyone's newspaper is on the
computer" still requires a much different (and bigger) infrastructure.

>It is my guess that 90% of the value of a newspaper lies in the text,
>and only about 10% lies in the pictures. That is just a guess, but the
>point is that a newspaper without pictures is still a valuable item -
>it doesn't become worthless by removing the pictures.

The Wall Street Journal is a case in point.

MY ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY on the WHOLE IDEA

One other problem/consideration. The value of a newspaper (as opposed to
television and journals) is that detailed information is QUICKLY
available if I want it [see story inside]. [On TV it is not available or
selectable, in a journal it is not timely.] So I can replace 90-98%
of the content with "headline news paragraphs" IF I can punch a "more news"
button and get the whole story in say 5-60 seconds. This "on demand"
bandwidth is hard to provide cheaply for a lot of users. Unless I can do 
at least that, my newspaper does it cheaper and easier.

The electronic newspaper also costs:
   my phone dedication (pre ISDN),
   my need for a screen (can i take it to the john?, to the beach?),
   my inability to clip (i need a printer?), and
   divide and share (now i need a screen for me [business/travel]
      wife [classifieds/home] 2 for the kids [funnies & fashion]).
IF i can store a lot,
    i get a better "save" mechanism (and postprocessing!);
and IF the world cooperates and makes news cheap (HA!)
    i can get keyed reference into extended data on demand for followup.
THOSE are the real advantages.

BUT STOP SAYING IT'S CHEEP TO DO WHAT THE NEWSPAPER ALREADY DOES - IT AINT.

Dave "electronics is just a little bit expensive" Cameron