Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!haven!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!dls
From: dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful
Keywords: email fax
Message-ID: <6048@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 89 19:19:25 GMT
References: <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1250@toro.UUCP> <5803@umd5.umd.edu>
Organization: PUCC UNIX Group
Lines: 30

In article <5803@umd5.umd.edu>, oleary@umd5.umd.edu (dave o'leary) writes:
> FAX will be eclipsed by what we might call electronic mail - it is really
> just a matter of communication between two (or more) people.

	I agree. Part of that eclipse will have to be the ability to include
a copy of a physical document (bitmaps), generated graphics, sound and just
plain old arbitrary binary data in "electronic mail," which isn't at all what
we commonly call "electronic mail" today. It's the general problem of
multimedia documents in an electronic form.

> but the interface to mail isn't as good.

	The biggest problem with the interface is that it doesn't include a
Fax interface... :-) Or a sound interface.
	I mean, that's really the key difference; if I have a physical
document I want someone else to see, *I* shouldn't have to translate that
into an electronic form, even if I *can*. That's what Fax does that e-mail
does not.
	As long as there is no standard for sending sound, graphic or binary
data via long haul networks *conveniently*, there will be a need for more than
e-mail. And it should not surprise anyone that people prefer the convenience
of Fax over the current limitations of e-mail.

	And the broader question:

	Why have a separate voice network? Why have Fax-over-phone-lines?
Why NOT have a single large-scale, (very) high-bandwidth network that can handle
any kind of data you want with universal addressability?
-- 
					+-DLS  (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)