martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joacim Martillo) (01/16/89)
In article <5291@pdn.UUCP> larry@pdn.UUCP (0000-Larry Swift) writes: >In article <1943@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joacim Martillo) writes: >>Clearly, lots of computer scientists are losing it. ISDN is a >Losing what? >>ridiculous technology which does not provide anything which is not >>already available through the current public phone and data networks. >>The comparable ISDN service will probably be inferior but cost more. >This appears to be a nonsensical claim unless you can offer >substantiation. Do you have any? Extension phones are not possible with ISDN. (The phone company always wanted to charge you for this.) For no good reason, the proposed ISDN numbering scheme is incompatible with the current numbering scheme which makes it very likely that ISDN users will be have difficulty setting up calls which interwork to a non-ISDN users. ISDN users will effectively be stuck on isolated desert islands. All the ISDN packet switches and modules which I have seen have miserable performance since they are designed and manufactured by people who really only understand voice. Look at it this way. AT&T products are low quality and ridiculously expensive. AT&T is a major player in standardizing ISDN. Worse the European PTTs are the major driving force behind ISDN. The PTTs are not comparable to AT&T but rather are comparable to the US Postal Service. The US Postal Service cannot deliver mail cheaply, efficiently and reliably. Would you really put the US Postal Service in charge of defing a major new communications technology? >The increased bandwidth alone makes the offering very interesting. What increased bandwidth? You can already lease 56kbps lines or T1 lines? An ISDN-PBX-LAN would be significantly lower bandwidth than most other LAN technologies. I suppose there might be some value to ISDN in providing remote connectivity but if I were a network administrator I suspect I could establish remote connectivity more cheaply by judiciously establishing point-to-point leased lines between remote networks. The bottom line is that ISDN because of the nature of the providers is mostly oriented to providing switched physical circuits, which really are not of terribly great use in genuine computer networking and resource sharing.
pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) (01/18/89)
In article <1979@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joacim Martillo) writes: >Extension phones are not possible with ISDN. (The phone company always >wanted to charge you for this.) Absolutely incorrect. Extension phones are possible, allowed for in the BRI and will certainly be a part of everyones ISDN offerings. >For no good reason, the proposed >ISDN numbering scheme is incompatible with the current numbering scheme >which makes it very likely that ISDN users will be have difficulty >setting up calls which interwork to a non-ISDN users. Totally wrong. ISDN is numbering plan independant. Perhaps you were refering to one of the numerous suggestions to numbering plan expansion, affecting *all* phone users, not just ISDN. Look at any one of the current ISDN trials. Normal numbering plans are the standard. >ISDN users will >effectively be stuck on isolated desert islands. Completely incorrect. ISDN provides a mechanism to unify and connect all networks. Also, have you ever heard of CCS7? >All the >ISDN packet switches and modules which I have seen have miserable >performance since they are designed and manufactured by people who >really only understand voice. ISDN banwidth may not be up to par with some other networks in the industry, but ISDN vendors are not blind to future directions. Have you ever heard of broadband ISDN? ISDN is still currently developing, and will certainly match network speeds of other networks, while still providing a common interface. >Worse the European PTTs are the major >driving force behind ISDN. The PTTs are not comparable to AT&T >but rather are comparable to the US Postal Service. I hope this was tongue in cheek. So what if the PTTs are goverment owned (although you obviously have not been keeping up with the current trend of European countries privatizing their PTTs). The PTTs have not had the huge profits of AT&T to build their networks with. That is why they are so much behind ISDN. It provides a method of expanding their telephone network and being standardized between countries, with an eye for easy upgrading in the future. This will in the end cut costs. >What increased bandwidth? You can already lease 56kbps lines or T1 >lines? Are you serious? Do I want to by a T-span for my house? Be real. ISDN provides decent bandwidth for a low cost. If you need much more speed, go ahead and buy your FDD network, or whatever. You'll end up having to interface with ISDN anyway because thats the way the rest of the world will be going. The whole point is ISDN is lower cost, and easily configurable, as centrex services are today. -- Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul