jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (01/29/88)
Having just finished the installation of my Trailblazer, I was
surprised to see the following in an article by Ted Drude in the
latest Computer Shopper:
"And remember, the telecommunication "experts" are sure that 9600
baud is the fastest speed which will ever be possible over
dial-up phone lines."
Computer Shopper, February 1988, p76.
The author must not read this newsgroup. He must be spending all his
time in rec.humor. Is that where he did his research?
By the way, I am happy that no "experts" work at Telebit.
--
Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612
uunet!swlabs!jackmorgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (02/01/88)
In article <2009@swlabs.UUCP> jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: >Having just finished the installation of my Trailblazer, I was >surprised to see the following in an article by Ted Drude in the >latest Computer Shopper: > > "And remember, the telecommunication "experts" are sure that 9600 > baud is the fastest speed which will ever be possible over > dial-up phone lines." > > Computer Shopper, February 1988, p76. > >The author must not read this newsgroup. He must be spending all his >time in rec.humor. Is that where he did his research? Actually, the expert is probably just misquoted, not wrong. The highest possible baud rate (so far) is actually 1200 baud (or something like that - might be 2400). The highest possible bits-per-second rate IS 9600, and that's only one way. But in addition to baud rate, and bps rate, there is also comething called an effective throughput rate, which can be as high as 19200 (at the moment). What happens is that the information is encoded to get higher bps rate, and the information can also be compressed to get a very high throughput rate. Thus, if you want to send 100 bytes of information, the modems may be able to represent the information in (for example) 100 bits and so the information could be sent in the "space" of 100/8 bytes. Neat, Huh? >By the way, I am happy that no "experts" work at Telebit. I'm happy that "experts" DO work at Telebit, otherwise we couldn't benefit from their great modems. >-- >Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 >uunet!swlabs!jack -- Please use bang path addressing, as this is a new site. Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. ...!utgpu!telly \ !brambo!morgan ...!{uunet!mnetor, watmath!utai}!lsuc!ncrcan / "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (02/03/88)
In article <249@brambo.UUCP>, morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes: > In article <2009@swlabs.UUCP> I wrote: > >Having just finished the installation of my Trailblazer, I was > >surprised to see the following in an article by Ted Drude in the > >latest Computer Shopper: > > > > "And remember, the telecommunication "experts" are sure that 9600 > > baud is the fastest speed which will ever be possible over > > dial-up phone lines." > > > > Computer Shopper, February 1988, p76. > > > >The author must not read this newsgroup. He must be spending all his > >time in rec.humor. Is that where he did his research? > > Actually, the expert is probably just misquoted, not wrong. No, he is just plain wrong. (discussion regarding the difference between bps and baud as well as an optimistic compression result (8:1!) deleted for brevity) > Neat, Huh? Yeah, neat. But it is even neater to be able to do 18,000 bps without compression, which is what the Telebit does. After the error detection and synchronization bits are stripped off, the actual data rate is closer to 14,600 bps. Add compression in and you can be back up saturating the 19.2 kbps link between the modem and the computer. Of course, this requires a clean line. If one wants to put compression into the formula, 2400 "baud" MNP modems can do 4800 bps, as was indicated elsewhere in this newsgroup. But I think this misrepresents the situation. (ESPECIALLY on my compressed batched newsfeed.) > >By the way, I am happy that no "experts" work at Telebit. > > I'm happy that "experts" DO work at Telebit, otherwise we couldn't > benefit from their great modems. Maybe a :-) would have made my last statement clearer. (Doesn't anyone around here have a sense of humor anymore?) -- Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack
cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu (Ernie Longmire) (02/04/88)
> Having just finished the installation of my Trailblazer, I was > surprised to see the following in an article by Ted Drude in the > latest Computer Shopper: > > "And remember, the telecommunication "experts" are sure that 9600 > baud is the fastest speed which will ever be possible over > dial-up phone lines." -- Computer Shopper, February 1988, p76. > > The author must not read this newsgroup. He must be spending all his > time in rec.humor. Is that where he did his research? > > Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 I would bet he researches better than you do . . . if you'd read the article more carefully, you would have realized that the author was making *fun* of the so-called "experts" who used to insist that dial-up modems could never, ever be designed to communicate faster than at 300 baud and that you'd need leased lines to "maybe -- just maybe" run at 1200-2400 baud...and who now insist that 9600 is the upper limit. Ernie Longmire (ncoast!lazlo) Now available at cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu . . (fodder for the Inews beastie)
jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) (02/06/88)
In article <2237@charon.unm.edu>, cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu (Ernie Longmire) writes: > I would bet he researches better than you do . . . if you'd read the article > more carefully, you would have realized that the author was making *fun* of > the so-called "experts" who used to insist that dial-up modems could never, > ever be designed to communicate faster than at 300 baud and that you'd need > leased lines to "maybe -- just maybe" run at 1200-2400 baud...and who now > insist that 9600 is the upper limit. Upon further examination, I too believe the "expert"s line was intended to be taken in a sarcastic tone. He just must have forgotten his ":-)". :-) On the other hand, I stand by my statement regarding the limited research shown by the article. It would have been appropriate to include a description of the Trailblazer in the article, if for no other reason than to disprove the "experts". Does anyone outside of the UNIX community even know about the Trailblazer? As an aside, what is the "real" theoretical maximum data rate that can be pushed through a data line? I guess I can set up a straw man. If one could control all the bits on a companded digitally sampled line (a big if), then 8 bit samples * 8K samples per second gives us a 64 kbps channel. They steal 8 kbps for signaling here in the US, so that leaves us 56 kbps. Although 14.4 kbps is using only less than 26% of this available bandwidth, how much more can we extract? At what point do you need to compensate for A-law/u-law companding? What if each end has different companding (for example on a transcontinental call)? What about phase jitter? At what point do these modems become "ISDN-killers"? (Sorry Rick.) -- Jack Bonn, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (02/07/88)
In article <2093@swlabs.UUCP> jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes: >At what point do these modems become "ISDN-killers"? (Sorry Rick.) In many regards, they already are ISDN killers, at least for the asynchronous RS-232 world. Even though basic rate ISDN promises two 64Kb channels (plus the poor mans 16 Kb channel), the fact is that the current practical limit for the interface speed is 19.2 (how many systems out there really can take 38.4 on input -- not many). Add in the (probable) reality that the RBOC's will price ISDN service at a premium, and you find that 'blazers and two line analog phones gives Little Widget Corp everything they wanted anyway. Of course, ISDN makes more sense for larger businesses. The promise of a single integrated network, higher fidelity audio, video, blah, blah, blah... The capability is well known, the timeframe still isn't. ISDN also makes more sense if you toss out the limitations of the RS-232 interface and go "backplane to backplane", as it were. The PC market is getting BRI capability at this level. I suspect you'll see PRI interfaces for mainframes following soon after. No matter what happens over the next 20 years or so, the 'blazers and ISDN will probably complement each other nicely. At some point you're going to want to connect with an area still served with analog lines. The 'blazers will make a real nice modem pool for accessing those areas. I fully expect ISDN to be a winner. However, I also expect that 10 years hence my little company will still be using 'blazer descendants for data. -- Rick Richardson, President, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 834-1378 (voice, days) uunet!pcrat!rick