[comp.dcom.modems] V32 will smash TB+ in a year

nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) (11/06/88)

In article <10805@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:

>For those who responded to my previous posting, you may be interested to
>know that Network World this week had an short blurb about a company that
>will be offering a V.32 chip set in OEM quantities for $150/ea.

a)You neglect to mention which company.
b)Since when is a single source of info enough to make a major decision on?

>They went on to say that by this time next year, it was expected that modems
>based on this design would be offered at retail for $750 or less.

See b above.  This sounds like the familiar "the check is in the mail"
line to me, I got bitten by this sort of forcasts before and learned from
my mistakes, maybe a year from now you too will learn, probably not given
your attitude.

>I was gratified to see this confirmation of my statement that V.32 was going
>to smash the telebit/hst/etceteras "within a year".  And I thought I was going
>out on a limb!  Heh heh.

Are you reading what is printed or what you wish to read?  I don't see
anything in this (or your previous) posting to support your claim that
the PEP/HST modems are going to be replaced by the V32 standard, just a
rumor that in a year a currently obsolete standard is EXPECTED to be
somewhat less expensive than it is now.

>David@cup.portal.com

Why do these characters all seem to crawl out of portal?

Obviously you did not read the responses to your previous posting.  The
point most here have made (and you missed) is that by using the TB+s we
are all saving bucks today, in most cases enough to cover the cost of the
TB+s and report a tidy savings on the side to boot.  I might also re-
enphasize that for several of us the TB+ is not only more efficient than
the V32 stuff because we don't care for full duplex and the TB+ is the
standard used on the ends our phone lines.

While we have been doing what works best for us I take it you have been
using older "standard" technology and wasting your company's bucks (this
is beyond your salary which I judge a waste for them too), looks like
the rest of us have come out ahead on this one.

Most of us don't argue what we will be doing in a year, we know technology
well enough not to try to forsee the "state of the art" at that time.
We'll probably be going with whatever is cost effective at the time, this
may not be the industry standard, but you can be sure that when we make
our decisions we will look at more than "standards", factors like cost-
effectiveness, reliability, etc will also be considered.
-- 
        Michael Galassi     | If my opinions happen to be the same as
...!tektronix!percival!nerd | my employer's it is ONLY a coincidence,
...!sun!nosun!percival!nerd | of course coincidences OFTEN DO happen.

David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) (11/09/88)

In <1417@percival.UUCP> nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) wrote:

>Obviously you did not read the responses to your previous posting.  The
>point most here have made (and you missed) is that by using the TB+s we
>are all saving bucks today, in most cases enough to cover the cost of the
>TB+s and report a tidy savings on the side to boot.

I assure you that I have read ALL of the responses.  Including yours.

See a later posting of mine which you apparently have not read which 
discusses the cost of doing business in a non-standard manner.  When you 
(as well as many of the other postings of similar ilk) claim this cost 
savings I think you are ignoring certain factors.

Perhaps a few questions will clarify my position.

How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  
What is that cost going to be?

What if you are a new site, just starting to use uucp; and because all the 
other uucp users talk telebit, you find you have to buy one too.  Yet, 
because you have need to talk to the rest of the world, you have to buy 
another modem type (v.32 again) for those applications.  What is your opinion 
going to be regarding the original netadmins who bought telebit?  Aren't you 
being forced to buy a modem and dedicate it to a particular application 
rather than using a single type in ALL your applications?  What about the 
possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the cost of that?

My position was, and remains, that there are many hidden costs to the 
trailblazers.  Maybe *you* haven't had to pay them...yet.  But you will.

>Most of us don't argue what we will be doing in a year, we know technology
>well enough not to try to foresee the "state of the art" at that time.

Both v.32 (echo cancellation) and PEP are old technology, so I think it is a 
little silly to drag in the phrase "state of the art", because it doesn't 
apply to either.  And if you seriously believe that v.32 will not be the 
dominant modulation technique for high speed modems a year from now, or 
decide to close your eyes and ignore the situation, I suppose you are 
entitled to do so.  Obviously, I disagree with that, and time will tell whose 
opinion corresponds more closely to reality, and who responded in a more 
effective manner.

David@cup portal.com

rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (11/10/88)

In article <11078@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:
>How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
>near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
>speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  

There is currently no place I need to talk that has V.32.  My priority
list is as follows:

	1) PEP (which I've already got)
	2) FAX
	3) Courier HST
	4) 2400
	5) 1200
	6) 0-600
	7) new 28k PEP
	8) V.32 (4800 baud fallback which Bill just proposed is OK).
	9) (need nine protocols for name to work:-) )

Stick all this in one modem.  Call it the Telebit D-niner "Bulldozer".
Talk about connectivity!  Only ubiquitous ISDN will make this modem obsolete.

-- 
Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2
PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2
uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/.    |submission forms.
jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP19200} 12013898963 "" \r ogin: jetuucp

mrm@sceard.UUCP (M.R.Murphy) (11/11/88)

In article <11078@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:
[stuff deleted and taken out of context...]
|
|Perhaps a few questions will clarify my position.
|
|How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
|near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
|speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  
|What is that cost going to be?
I expect in the not too distant future to junk all of the MODEMS that we
have because we will be using digital lines from our phriendly phone company
for data transmission.  MODEM=MODulator/DEModulator, remember:-)
|
|What if you are a new site, just starting to use uucp; and because all the 
|other uucp users talk telebit, you find you have to buy one too.  Yet, 
I don't have to buy one. I could get by with the longer transmission times
associated with 1200/2400/9600 modems. Not so well on crummy lines, but
ok.
|because you have need to talk to the rest of the world, you have to buy 
|another modem type (v.32 again) for those applications.  What is your opinion 
|going to be regarding the original netadmins who bought telebit?  Aren't you 
|being forced to buy a modem and dedicate it to a particular application 
|rather than using a single type in ALL your applications?  What about the 
|possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the cost of that?
|
We don't use a single type of computer in all of our applications either.
Or, for that matter, a single programming language.
|My position was, and remains, that there are many hidden costs to the 
|trailblazers.  Maybe *you* haven't had to pay them...yet.  But you will.
The costs aren't hidden. I can junk it now and go to a new technology,
and I am still ahead. And, as a small business, we paid the bill, not
our purchasing/accounts payable/finance/... departments. It was money
out-of-pocket and still a good deal.
|
|
|Both v.32 (echo cancellation) and PEP are old technology, so I think it is a 
|little silly to drag in the phrase "state of the art", because it doesn't 
|apply to either.  And if you seriously believe that v.32 will not be the 
|dominant modulation technique for high speed modems a year from now, or 
|decide to close your eyes and ignore the situation, I suppose you are 
|entitled to do so.  Obviously, I disagree with that, and time will tell whose 
|opinion corresponds more closely to reality, and who responded in a more 
|effective manner.
|
|David@cup portal.com

See the first comment. MODEMs are DOOMED. DIGITAL transmission methods
for DIGITAL data. No more obsolete ANALOG transmission 1/2-).
--
Mike Murphy  Sceard Systems, Inc.  544 South Pacific St.  San Marcos, CA  92069
ARPA: sceard!mrm@nosc.MIL   BITNET: MURPHY@UCLACH
UUCP: ucsd!sceard!mrm     INTERNET: mrm%sceard.UUCP@ucsd.ucsd.edu

lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) (11/11/88)

In article <11078@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:
>How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
>near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
>speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  
>What is that cost going to be?

Why do I respond to this guy?  I guess because I can't stand the smugness
of his warped position.

A.  We have 2 TB+s.  We keep them busy enough transmitting news and mail
    that I have no intention of letting anyone tie them up for some other
    purpose.

B.  V.32 will NEVER let us transfer files via uucp as fast as we can over
    the TB.  I consider 9600 baud too slow.

C.  Compared to all the other costs involved in networking our LAN to the
    rest of the world, the price of a TB is a drop in the bucket.

>What if you are a new site, just starting to use uucp; and because all the 
>other uucp users talk telebit, you find you have to buy one too.  Yet, 
>because you have need to talk to the rest of the world, you have to buy 
>another modem type (v.32 again) for those applications.  What is your opinion 
>going to be regarding the original netadmins who bought telebit?

I'd have a pretty high opinion of them.  And I'd buy another modem.  Big
deal.

>Aren't you 
>being forced to buy a modem and dedicate it to a particular application 
>rather than using a single type in ALL your applications?  What about the 
>possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the cost of that?

Economies of scale?  How many TB's do you think you need?  I figure that
2 TB's can feed at least 20 other TB sites.

As far as dedicating modems to an application, so what?  I got a three
1200 baud callback modems, each costing more than my TB's, dedicated
to dial-ins.  I've got another 1200 dedicated to low speed tip's.  If,
in the future, I need to run another application (say, SLIP) which the
TB can't handle, I'll buy the appropriate modem.  (And I'll give you
a HINT: It probably will be a TB++, not a ridiculously slow thing like
V.32)

>My position was, and remains, that there are many hidden costs to the 
>trailblazers.  Maybe *you* haven't had to pay them...yet.  But you will.

I would really like to hear what these "hidden" costs are, but unfortunately
I just put /mccord/h:j in my KILL file.  My blood pressure already too high.
-- 
Larry Blair   ames!vsi1!lmb   lmb%vsi1.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.gov

lyndon@nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (11/11/88)

In article <11078@cup.portal.com>, David@cup (David Michael McCord) writes:
>How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
>near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
>speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  
>What is that cost going to be?

I don't understand this. If my modems are at capacity, how am I going
to re-use them to get greater throughput?

We currently have seven TB+ modems in the card cage on 'ncc' and will
require additional cards before spring comes along. I find it highly
unlikely that we'll purchase V.32 when it comes time to expand.

>What if you are a new site, just starting to use uucp; and because all the 
>other uucp users talk telebit, you find you have to buy one too.  Yet, 
>because you have need to talk to the rest of the world, you have to buy 
>another modem type (v.32 again) for those applications.  What is your opinion 
>going to be regarding the original netadmins who bought telebit?  Aren't you 
>being forced to buy a modem and dedicate it to a particular application 
>rather than using a single type in ALL your applications?  What about the 
>possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the cost of that?

I think it's safe to say that for the majority of Unix sites, your
uucp neighbors and the "rest of the world" are one and the same.

What are these mysterious services I'm missing out on by not having
V.32 modems?

I don't consider our TB's as being dedicated to "a particular
application." They serve ALL our applications (news, mail, file
transfer via uucp for our customers with Unix systems, file transfer
via kermit and xmodem for customers with PC's, customer dialup access to 
our various timeshare services, ...)

I can't think of anyone who regrets our advising them to buy a
Trailblazer. The only pissed off modem customers I have are the
ones I sold HST's to (due to the lousy throughput when running
uucp over them - around 100 CPS).

>My position was, and remains, that there are many hidden costs to the 
>trailblazers.  Maybe *you* haven't had to pay them...yet.  But you will.

I don't buy this. I only use Trailblazers. I know what's necessary to
make them do what I require. The "hidden costs" in having to support
a non-PEP modem in addition far outweigh any of your arguments.

>And if you seriously believe that v.32 will not be the 
>dominant modulation technique for high speed modems a year from now, or 
>decide to close your eyes and ignore the situation, I suppose you are 
>entitled to do so.  Obviously, I disagree with that, and time will tell whose 
>opinion corresponds more closely to reality, and who responded in a more 
>effective manner.

I'm saving a copy of your posting, and have an entry in my calendar
for Nov 10/89 :-)

If ANYONE reading this is using V.32 for dialup communications on a
Unix system, please send me some mail indicating what you're using
for modems and how many of each (V.32, PEP, 2400, etc) as well as
a description of the applications you are using them for. I'll post
a summary in a week or so.

--lyndon

jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (11/11/88)

In article <614@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:

[Description of modem having PEP, FAX, Courier HST, 2400, 1200, 
 0-600, new 28k PEP, and V.32 modes]

>Stick all this in one modem.  Call it the Telebit D-niner "Bulldozer".
>Talk about connectivity!  Only ubiquitous ISDN will make this modem obsolete.

This is the thought that has been crossing my mind.  How much will the
V.32 modems penetrate the market before ISDN becomes commonplace?  It
seems that there is a rather small window of opportunity here, that the
$200 V.32 chip set may be here in the nick of time.  Even then, I am
not sure if I'd want to be stuck with an obsolete V.32 modem when ISDN
arrived (unless, of course, it had paid for itself by then :-).

International calls, you say?  Well it is probably true that inter-
continental ISDN may be a while in coming, but how good is V.32 on typical 
intercontinental voice grade lines?  What percent of the time does it
back off to 4800 baud?  I'm sure some of you do this type analysis every 
day (especially you "highly paid communications specialists").
-- 
Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT  06612
uunet!swlabs!jack (UUCP)	jack%swlabs.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)

chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (11/12/88)

In article <11078@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com
(David Michael McCord) writes:
>Perhaps a few questions will clarify my position.

>How many sites presently using trailblazers will find it necessary in the 
>near future to buy an additional 9600bps modems (v.32, natch) to support high 
>speed applications, instead of simply re-using their existing equipment?  
>What is that cost going to be?

This site is likely to buy additional high-speed (probably not 9600 bps,
and whether V.32 or otherwise is irrelevant) modems in the future (near
or otherwise).  That cost is as yet indeterminate and irrelevant to the
decision we made several months ago, just as the cost of that decision
(but not the decision itself) is irrelevant to which modems we might buy
then.

>What if you are a new site, just starting to use uucp; and because all the 
>other uucp users talk telebit, you find you have to buy one too.  Yet, 
>because you have need to talk to the rest of the world, you have to buy 
>another modem type (v.32 again) for those applications.  What is your opinion 
>going to be regarding the original netadmins who bought telebit?

You may fume all you wish, but the fact is that those netadmins bought
their TB modems for their own reasons, not for yours.  It remains to be
seen whether we will `have to buy' V.32 modems to `talk to the rest of
the world'---incidentally, it seems far more likely that we shall have
to buy instead more SURAnet and NSFnet equipment to talk to the
interesting part of the world; SNA and X.25 are really rather boring:
TCP/IP is `where it's at' now, and ISO/OSI (which is notably not the
same as X.25, though they are associated) is being hawked as the wave
of the future, even as FDDI is quietly encouraging another approach
entirely---or whether we will go off in some completely unanticipated
direction.  The point is that those who made a decision six months ago
made a decision that saved them money, and saved more money (in terms
of phone bills) than they might have lost by not buying V.32 modems in
the first place.  They can buy V.32 modems in the future, using future
dollars, for less true total cost than they paid in the past.

>Aren't you being forced to buy a modem and dedicate it to a particular
>application rather than using a single type in ALL your applications?

We only had one application.  Yes, we were forced; we did not mind,
and we will not mind changing, if that proves necessary.

>What about the possible economies of scale you are losing?  What is the
>cost of that?

Where are the economies?  If they remain a year down the road though we
buy now, we have already won.  The dollars of 1989 are cheaper than the
dollars of 1988.  So say the economists.  The TB+ saved us more value
in 1988 dollars than we might spend in 1989 dollars.

>... if you seriously believe that v.32 will not be the dominant
>modulation technique for high speed modems a year from now ....

We seriously care not what may be dominant a year from now.  We can
afford to throw away the TB+ modems any time; they have already paid
for themselves.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (11/13/88)

One subject area that has not been discussed very much is the use
of modems in conjunction with satelite communications.  Only a few
of the v.32 modems that I have tried have worked well with very
long echo delays (150+ mS).  Most notably, AT&T's v.32 modem seemed
to be able to handle anything we gave it.  I experienced some bugs
with the UDS modem.  I only had one Concord modem at the time, and
had a lot of trouble getting it to establish a connection with
other brand v.32 modems.  Interestingly, price versus performance,
seems to relate to v.32 modems too; the AT&T is one of the most
expensive offerings, but it works the best too.

There are places in the world were it might be difficult to avoid a
multihop satelite link.  The Indian Ocean area comes to mind; there
are relatively fewer undersea cable links in that area.  Since
satelites are in an orbit roughly 36,000 km obove the earth's
surface, the round trip delay going through a satelite is about 240
mS.  If one happened to get a double hop, that is 480 mS of delay.
That is probably outside the margin of virtually any v.32 modem to
deal with.  One might not see a double hop in the direct dial
network, but if one's company has a large private network of leased
transponders, the odds are worse (ie, favor double hop).

In cases such as the above, you will win if you pick an asymetrical
protocol and PEP modem modulation.  Unix's g protocol together with
a trailblazer or ventel pathfinder PEP modem makes a nice combination.
PEP modems will also be relatively less impacted in throughput on a
poor link to such areas too.

In the domestic US and european regions, v.32 modems make more
sense with a duplex protocol such as FAST or whatever.  There are
many terrestrial fiber optic links available, so the odds of going
through a satelite are smaller.

Users such as Rick Adams at seismo have reported quite good performance
data with PEP modem links to far flung locations with long delays or
noisy links.

As far as I am concerned, not having both a PEP modem AND a v.32
is a good business practice.  You can trust me that management
doesn't give a damn what you buy as long as they see the operating
costs of your department decreasing.  Capital goods such as modems
can be depreciated, allowing the costs to be recovered over time.
Operating expese for telecommunications makes management angry
because that is money that is gone.  If I have anything that lowers
my expense, it makes me look good.  PEP modems and V.32 modems both
make me look good.  For the moment, most of our communications is
via the direct dial network, but in the near future that will
switch over to a leased T1 circuit with a 56Kbaud interface that is
neither PEP nor V.32, but we'll probably spend less money that way
and management will be happy.

--Bill