Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:9657 comp.org.usenix:1237
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful/Re: USENIX board studies UUCP
Message-ID: <106@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 89 07:13:00 GMT
References: <8912200236.AA25652@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <7375@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Lines: 62

In article <7375@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <8912200236.AA25652@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> cire@CISCO.COM (cire|eric) writes:
>> Yes Computer based telecommunications has a great deal of more utility
>> than FAX but I don't think that is the point.  You must first make the
>> connection before all that starts making a difference.
>
>OK. Let's do it. What should the communications look like? UUCP? Dial-up
>SLIP? Or something more like FIDO? All we need to do is agree on a
>standard and then we can start saying:
>
>	mail 7134385018!peter
>Or:
>	mail peter@7134385018.PHONE
>
>And folks with home PCs can do the same. Just make it simple enough that
>any bozo with a copy of PCTalk can hack it up.
>
>Chat scripts for UUCP, and baud rates, are the biggest problem.
>
>How about this:
>
>To start up the session, you need to send the string "email<CR>". This should
>handle the login problems. You keep sending this string with a 1 second
>delay until you get a protocol startup... so you'd make your email login
>"email" with password (if any) "email". A PC could just start straight up
>with the protocol.

A couple of suggestions.

First anything you do shouldn't disenfranchise the existing successful base
that is using fax technology. Your new protocol should be able to send "email" 
to a fax machine and receive and print a fax from a fax machine. 

Let's face it at this point in time you'll be able to send email to more 
destinations by simply doing this than anything else.

Of course this implies that you'll need a V.29 modem and be able to support
the T.30 protocols. This also simplifies to a certain extent what you do when
your machine calls another or you answer the phone because the current
specifications are pretty explicit. So what you do is work within the
current standards committee's to make suggestions as to how these protocols
can be extended to support sending/receiving messages/files. 

The end result is a pretty simple to use communications medium that will
probably be quite successful because it leverages off of the current
installed base of fax machines instead of competing against it.

There are a couple of other interesting side effects. The cost of building
V.29 modems is coming down. I've seen reports of $195 9600 bps fax modems.
Definitely competitive with a 2400 Hayes compatible. A reasonable FTP using
a 9600 bps fax modem can achieve something over 700cps throughput (wall 
clock timing on a file I watched being transferred). 

The current fax specifications have given us an specific way to place calls;
synchronize with the far end; decide what type of operations will take
place; at what speed; and can be extended for a wide range of other options.

Other extensions could include higher signalling speeds, switching to a
bi-directional 1200/2400 signalling mode for interactive use, etc.

-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)