zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET (05/03/89)
Some of you have been very keen on electronic newspapers. This media has
its advantages, especially to those equiped with high-res graphic equipment.
However, from my humble experience, our generation is still used to read
things printed on paper. I feel much more comfortable reading printed
things than reading from a computer terminal. This is especially so for
long articles (more than 1-2 terminal screens <20-40 lines>).
I think it has something to do with the following factors:
1. The lighting is better controlled, and more convenient when reading
printed material.
2. You grasp larger areas of the article (or of the newspaper), when
you have it printed. This is something lacking in computer terminals,
though it might be better with the 19'' graphic workstations.
So, to conclude, I think electronic newspapers can catch on with the
people having access to printers, used to print some of the material
to be read.
--
Doron Zifrony E-mail: BITNET: zifrony@taurus.bitnet
Msc. Student INTERNET: zifrony@Math.Tau.Ac.IL
Dept. of CS ARPA: zifrony%taurus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Tel Aviv Univ. UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!taurus!zifrony
Israel CSNET: zifrony%taurus.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@
csnet-relay
--
Disclaimer: I DON'T represent Tel Aviv University. The opinions hereby
expressed are solely my own.bowles@MICA.BERKELEY.EDU (Jeff A. Bowles) (05/03/89)
From: zifrony%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Electronic Newspapers
Some of you have been very keen on electronic newspapers. This
media has its advantages, especially to those equiped with
high-res graphic equipment. However, from my humble
experience, our generation is still used to read things printed
on paper. I feel much more comfortable reading printed things
than reading from a computer terminal. This is especially so
for long articles (more than 1-2 terminal screens <20-40
lines>).
Sure, if you're reading at 1200 baud. You're right that this 9x15 dot matrix
that makes my current CRT typeface isn't as readable as what the NY Times
uses, and that the layout makes all the difference. Find a very old newspaper
and look at it carefully: even if it's printed, the layout can make it
unreadable.
2. You grasp larger areas of the article (or of the newspaper), when
you have it printed. This is something lacking in computer
terminals, though it might be better with the 19" workstations.
Again, this is presentation, not medium. For example, if a newspaper were
given to me on a display that looks like a Mac screen (say), and each article
were a separate "file" and each section ("Home", "Comics", "Business",
"Sports", "Index") were a folder, I could come close to the organization of
a current newspaper.
Would I want to? Perhaps not. Think about it: things like "netnews" will
give you an index or will give you the "next" article. Two choices. (How
many of you open a newspaper to the index?)
So, to conclude, I think electronic newspapers can catch on with the
people having access to printers, used to print some of the material
to be read.
Nope. I consider the old NY Times articles I find [for reference] in the
public library to be quite readable, thank you, although they're on microfilm.
Staring at a tube, be it a TV, a microfilm/fiche reader, or high-res monitor,
seems no harder than looking at a newspaper. And I can run "grep" on it, if
it's in ASCII.
If forced to look at the world through a 24x80 CRT screen, perhaps I might
agree with you. But don't limit "what can be done" with "what seems impossible
given current equipment".
Jeffharry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) (05/04/89)
Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper deliverer
chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? Until 'phone line speeds are comparable
to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, 20
page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper must
require several magabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't that cheap
either, so what *are* we talking about here???
As for the reading medium, I think it's inevitable that *someone* will come
up with some hires floppy LCD-like display that's fun to hold &c. &c. &c....
--
_---_ \ \
/ /@ |/ | Nothing is true.
| /| _/ / Everything is permitted.
\ \ -___-breen@SILVER.BACS.INDIANA.EDU (elise breen) (05/05/89)
This is not on the subject of Electronic Newspapers, but it was easier to just hit the reply key. My question is what happened with all of the Tibetan networking stuff that was put out on this list and why was it put out on this list? I sent some e-mail to the persons listed as "contact" people and have received no reply. Does anyone on this mailing list know what the real story is on this? Thanks, Elise breen@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu or breen@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
savela@tel2.vtt.fi (Markku Savela) (05/06/89)
In article <174@marvin.moncam.co.uk>, harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) writes: > ... > to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, 20 > page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper must > require several magabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't that cheap > either, so what *are* we talking about here??? How about some large publisher leasing the spare night time from a cable-TV channel? Each subscriber would have an advanced "black box" which could unscramble the signal and feed the paper to the workstation memory. The paper could be transmitted several times to catch transmission errors. All this would happen unattended during the night. By leasing the channel for 24 hours, the paper could be updated any time. In this case the paper would actually form incrementally from the updates. Latest news any time you wish to read them. The workstation could have own monitor or it could utilize the HDTV. -- Markku Savela
vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) (05/06/89)
Why limit yourselves to thinking of the technology of today. Why not something like Stargate or using the cable from cable TV? There is plenty of unused bandwidth (or mis-used if you really look at how much junk is on the tube) even with today's technology. Your home computer (/HDTV/ISDN terminal/etc (Kill your Television)) just sits around and soaks up all the things you subscribe to, including audio and video news for when you get around to reading/experiencing it. If you want to keep it just save it on a WORM card or such. The monochrome Sun 3/60 I am on now is adequate for decent rendering and it is by no means state of the art. Imagine your HDTV station reading the news with color images and video clips in various windows, stereo sound and all. Interactive. This is possible today. Imagine what will happen tomorrow. "Even Marilyn Monroe was a man, but, this, tends to get overlooked, by, our mother fixated overweight sexist media" -- Robin Hitchcock _____ | | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625- -----
evanh@sco.COM (Evan A.C. Hunt) (05/06/89)
harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper): >Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper deliverer >chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? Until 'phone line speeds are comparable >to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, 20 >page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper must >require several magabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't that cheap >either, so what *are* we talking about here??? We can send TV signals around on cables, and that takes pretty impressive bandwidth--thirty pictures a second. I'm sure with some reasonable compaction algorithm you could download a newspaper from a TV channel in a few minutes, probably a lot less. So you set up a service on your cable system, on one of those thirty or forty available channels that I've never known a cable system to use, which, every few minutes, blasts out the latest news. When you want to read the news, you turn on your receiver, which waits for the next transmission on channel 90 to begin, and reads it in when it does. The system would probably have to transmit slower than it was capable of doing, though, because we wouldn't want it to go faster than the receiver's mass storage. How long does it take to write several megabytes on a hard disk? Two, three minutes, maybe? Then that's our lower limit on speed. Now the only problem is getting enough people to buy receivers to make it worth the cable company's time and money. -- Evan A.C. Hunt evanh@sco.COM The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. uunet!sco!evanh (408) 425-7222 evanh%sco.COM@ucscc.ucsc.EDU
djm@etive.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy) (05/06/89)
In article <491@atlas.tegra.UUCP> vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) writes: > > [ ] > >The monochrome Sun 3/60 I am on now is adequate for decent rendering >and it is by no means state of the art. Imagine your HDTV station >reading the news with color images and video clips in various windows, >stereo sound and all. Interactive. > >This is possible today. Imagine what will happen tomorrow. > > [ ] > _____ >| | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu >|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625- > ----- This is the sort of comment which gets me really annoyed ! I agree entirely - I think it is a fantastic idea. But I live in the UK and the useless bunch of creeps who run the telecom system can't provide the necessary comms. Much has been promised over the years but precious little is ever delivered. By the way - one of my favourite ideas is running a game like `Elite' (dunno if everyone has heard of this - it is a space trader/pirate type thing) played with multi-user access so participants can team up or fight against each other. Sort of thing which would make a huge amount of money very quickly then get banned. On a more serious note - how about a completely cable TV broadcast system - I can envisage this pretty much ensuring reception quality no matter what the atmospherics, and also (not sure about this one) be more efficient in terms of the amount of energy required to reach a given number of receivers. Also, getting TV off the air waves would free up a fair amount of space for other applications (something which is getting in increasingly short supply). Local distribution centres would eliminate the case of the relf-righteous who complain that `unsuitable' programming is broadcast in a form that everyone can receive - since software blocks could easily be put in place (and, of course, create a generation of 8 year old hackers who can patch lines through to their homes to watch `Emmanuelle' and the like :-)). BUT it is all pie unless and until we get the comms. This is what comes of relying on someone else. Murff.... JANET: djm@uk.ac.ed.etive Internet: djm%ed.etive@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Murff@uk.ac.ed.emas-a Murff%ed.emas-a@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk trinity@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis trinity%ed.cs.tardis@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk D.J. Murphy Chemistry Dept. Univ. of Edinburgh "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Woody Allen
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (05/07/89)
There's only one problem with electronic newspapers: censorship.
Apparently, the fedscists only consider hardcopy news to be
protected by the 1st Amendment. Going electronic might
present them with an opportunity to manage the news even
more than they do now.
Para un Tejas Libre,
Jeff Daiell
--
"Apple pies are made from apples, aren't they? And apples are
nutritious. So eating apples pies is good for you."
-- Fusser McGee, The First Of Threesewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (05/07/89)
harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper): >Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper deliverer >chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? Until 'phone line speeds are comparable >to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, 20 >page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper must >require several megabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't that cheap >either, so what *are* we talking about here??? Well, the X*PRESS (Englewood, CO) modem on the table next to me has been giving me a 9600 bps data stream from the cable TV system for many months. ASCII news, weather, sports, financial. Many retransmissions during each day. Your computer just collects the stuff and when you're ready you can look at it. Newspaper? Last time I looked there were contributions from USA Today as well as other sources. There aren't many pictures in most papers, and NAPLPS graphics could create those at fair resolution easily. Pictures might be repeated only a few times a day. This almost constant 9600 bps can carry a lot of data each day. Just look at how much goes through USENET feeds daily, often at slower rates. Several people have suggested using a TV channel for data. That cable is not restricted to TV format signals, as people listening to FM radio stations from cable are aware. I don't know what signaling method is recognized by the X*PRESS modem (manufactured by M/A-COM, a name well known in the industry) , but there are many RF signals sent through these systems. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.
Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (05/08/89)
> From: zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET > So, to conclude, I think electronic newspapers can catch on with the > people having access to printers, used to print some of the material > to be read. > Let's make a couple of speculative leaps into our technological future: 1) Cheaper 19200 BAUD modems (or 56Kbaud ISDN) 2) Cheaper laser printers 3) a software graphics standard The news service or newspaper can transmit to you the "news" in exactly thesame way they currently transmit it to whatever typesetting/output device they use to put it on paper. You put it on paper if and when you want it on paper. The paper problem is well on its way to being solved. In my own personal opinion, material is more useful to me if it is in electronic rather than paper form. I can get my computer to scan a few megabytes of text for subject material that I'm interested in more easily than I can do that with the New York Times on paper. I suspect that hardware and software improvements in the next few years will result in a steadily growing demand for news in electronic form, though I doubt that the demand for it on paper will every entirely disappear. People still raise and buy horses now don't they! =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (05/08/89)
> From: harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) > > Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper > deliverer > chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? Until 'phone line speeds are > comparable > to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, Phone speeds are comparable to ethernet,with 38 Kbaud transmission of text being possible over voice grade lines today, 19200 BAUD being common. How do you think all this news ends up on your computer for you to read? All of it (here anyway) comes in over the 19.2 Kbaud modems at night > 20 > page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper must it's called "broadsheet" > require several magabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't that cheap > either, so what *are* we talking about here??? > Well, if you exclude pictures a 20 page tabloid's contents will easily fit on a 360Kb floppy, including add content. Pictures are something of an imponderable in terms of data volume. A 19.2 Kbaud modem can move nearly 200Kb of raw text per minute, and such modems cost in the neighbourhood of US$1,000. So with "off-the-shelf" technology today we can move the data of a 20 page broadsheet newspaper over the modem in three or four minutes. > As for the reading medium, I think it's inevitable that *someone* will > come > up with some hires floppy LCD-like display that's fun to hold &c. &c. > &c.... Agreed! =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (05/08/89)
In article <174@marvin.moncam.co.uk> harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) writes: >Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper deliverer >chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? Until 'phone line speeds are comparable >to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, 20 >page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper must >require several magabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't that cheap >either, so what *are* we talking about here??? Well, one possiblity is cable TV, here in North America several cable companies already offer a service called Xpress in which news is broadcast to people who have purchased an interface for their PC's. At this point most of the material is just straight off the wire services. -- Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Until the next maps go out: moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP if you roll your own: uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley I'd like to try golf but I just can't bring myself to buy a pair of plaid pants
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (05/08/89)
In article <2331.246511D1@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: >Phone speeds are comparable to ethernet,with 38 Kbaud transmission of text >being possible over voice grade lines today, 19200 BAUD being common. How do >you think all this news ends up on your computer for you to read? All of it >(here anyway) comes in over the 19.2 Kbaud modems at night. I'd like to make one point about speed. It's important to recognise that for any particular site on Usenet (or any future national news/discussion network) the amount of information coming into the site is 100 to 1000 times greater than the information being originated by the site. Therefore, if I were going to be setting up a nationwide network, I'd do it as an advanced form of X*PRESS. Use a comsat to broadcast the news, repeating it so that if you are tuned in for, say, 6 hours every 3 days, you'll be guaranteed of getting all the messages. Next, set up a modem network (ala Usenet) or even a central 800 number (ala UUNET) for the sending of messages. Then, anyone with a cable network / sat dish and a converter box (cheap!) could get news cheaply. What about mail? Well, it may not be appropriate for mail to be broadcast, due to the higher amount of traffic. However, there are some possible advantages; one being, with broadcasting, you can get your mail _anywhere_ you can listen in to the broadcast. Another problem with mail is that when you are broadcasting it, you don't want people to listen in. The way you fix this is with a public key encryption scheme. For example, we might extend Reply To: lines as follows: Reply-To: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Public-Key-A: 823478921347823487912349872347249823524859827520193841237412398 Public-Key-B: 784538905723423485823742872857240958240958432095832409583240958 Public-Key-C: 457348573457324587342895732589374258372458166128239209243588238 ... In other words, each mail or news message contains the public key of the sender, so if you want to send a private message, you have the key needed to encrypt it. When you receive mail, your software sends a message through the network to the central broadcaster (using public key verification methods so the broadcaster knows it is you) saying "I got this message; you don't need to broadcast it anymore." If the server doesn't get this message within 48 hours of the first broadcast, it broadcasts a "not received" message back to the sender. One other method for mail (in order to increase the information density of the channel). When you want your mail, you phone up the broadcaster and say, "Is there is any mail for me?", to which the server replies "No", "Yes, but we can send it over this phone line in less than a minute, here it is" or, if the caller has indicated it can listen in to broadcasts, "Yes, but there is a lot; it will be broadcast on channel X at time Y for Z seconds, repeated on X1 at Y1 for Z1, and again at X2 at Y2 for Z2, go listen for it" What happens when our sat data channel is fully saturated? Multiple channels, of course (The audio subcarrier of a sat channel can hold many different channels, all running at perhaps 9600 baud or more?). In this situation, what you do is have one channel be the Index channel. What it broadcasts is a running index of what is upcoming on the other channels, say, in the next half hour or so, giving the message headers of each message. So your software can say "Oh, I don't have this message in comp.society.futures, I'd better tune in to it in 134 seconds and listen for 2 seconds. And note that, just like your mail, you can call and request the broadcaster send a message or messages you missed. Comments? -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep." -- Woody Allen.
harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) (05/08/89)
In article <2907@viscous.sco.COM>, evanh@sco.COM (Evan A.C. Hunt) writes: > We can send TV signals around on cables, and that takes > pretty impressive bandwidth--thirty pictures a second. I'm sure It may come as a shock to many Americans that cable teevee is still in its infancy, compared to the telephone network, and in Europe it is still *very* much a novelty... thus what we have is NOT yet as accessible as the telephone; okay, I know not everyone has a 'phone, but more people haver 'phones than cable, and I have a feeling that cable is more expensive than 'phones, so it's liable to stay that way for some time. If this is the way things are going, and comparing it with the telephone network, it is, then yes, that's the way to do it. However, as far as a public network goes, we're going to be stuck with 'phones for as long as it takes governments (or private companies) to go over to optical cables or whatever's fastest. I thought we were talking now and everyone, not tomorrow and the select few. -- ,---.'\ ( /@ )/ Nothing is true. /( _/ ) Everything is permitted. \,`---'
djm@etive.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy) (05/09/89)
In article <2331.246511D1@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: > >Phone speeds are comparable to ethernet,with 38 Kbaud transmission of text >being possible over voice grade lines today, 19200 BAUD being common. How do >you think all this news ends up on your computer for you to read? All of it >(here anyway) comes in over the 19.2 Kbaud modems at night > >-- > Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 > UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson > Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG OK - so it happens in the States, and for biggish organizations like the military or universities and businesses who can grab the phone companies by the scruff of the neck and demand a decent service. Certainly in the UK the major phone company, British Telecom (recently sold off due to government dogma) treats the small user like dirt - not only is the service lousy but it is hard to get even a 9600 baud modem that they'll approve. Furthermore, by privatizing the system the government cut off the possibility for central finance aid for improvements like fast installation of digital fibre-optic systems at a time when such is becoming vital. All this is politics, though. The problem of data transmission is still there. Even with transmission of compressed data, I can see pictures being a problem. I use Xerox Ventura Publisher, and occasionally import bit image captures of spectra and other externally generated hard copy. Even coming off the hard disk at (what Western Digital say in the manual is) 7.5Mbps it still takes a formidable amount of time to generate one picture. This might be fine for LeMond, or for quality publications where the premium is on the printed word, but it won't do for the bulk sellers which rely for much of their popularity on pictorial data which is easily conveyed. For this reason there may be severe problems providing a service like electronic news cheaply enough (in the near future) to make it a viable proposition. Murff.... JANET: djm@uk.ac.ed.etive Internet: djm%ed.etive@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Murff@uk.ac.ed.emas-a Murff%ed.emas-a@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk trinity@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis trinity%ed.cs.tardis@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk D.J. Murphy Chemistry Dept. Univ. of Edinburgh "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Woody Allen
mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, I'll think of something yet) (05/09/89)
>> I have a feeling that >> cable is more expensive than 'phones, so it's liable to stay that >> way for some time. Actually, I suspect that feeling is false - or at least not as important as other factors. Both basic cable & basic phone service run about the same around here - $10/month. Of course, there are variations on the phone service for people on restricted budgets that make it cheaper - but you wouldn't want to use those for getting newspaper service anyway. A more important problem is that cable service isn't available in all parts of the country. >> I thought we were talking now and everyone, not tomorrow and the >> select few. I assumed we were talking a select few today and everybody tomorrow. And that the service was (like television, cable and the phone system), something it would cost money to use. As the few become the many, the costs should go down. At this point, there are probably about as many TVs per capita as telephones. That being the case, the methods used to deliver signals to a TV are logical things to look at for getting newspaper text to a computer. For example, the Express service doesn't charge a service fee, the charge for the box to tie the thing to your computer. Could such a service be used over standard broadcast media? That solves the problem of "not everybody having cable." Assuming that you could build the broadcast->RS232 interface for about the cost of the similar Xpress interface, costs would be about the same as the cost for a TV set (well between low-end color and B&W). Funding should be from the same source as the Express funding. <mike
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (05/09/89)
In article <2330.246511CD@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: >The news service or newspaper can transmit to you the "news" in exactly >thesame way they currently transmit it to whatever typesetting/output >device they use to put it on paper. Yes, but the display on your own terminal would be pretty hard to format for in advance, right? With many different screens of different size/definition ratios the publishers would have to reduce the formatting to a least common denominator. Or have an intelligent feed that would query your terminal as to its screen configuration, and send a version specially formatted for that size. Or, have a resident program that would format the information according to a pre-defined standard that you had established... > Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 > UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson > Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG -- ******************************************************** * Blake "Hey, where's *MY* fancy .signature?" Sobiloff * * sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu * ********************************************************
zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET (05/09/89)
Jeff Daiell claims that electronic newspapers are bound to be censored.
I do not agree it is possible that such a thing could be made without
being detected by other people, and without forming a big scandal.
Anyway, the printed newspapers will not disappear so quickly; think of
all the people who are still feel very alienated by computers.
Until such a time when electronic newspapers will rule, an effort could
be made to prevent dangers to the freedom of speech relating to this kind
of media.
--
Doron Zifrony E-mail: BITNET: zifrony@taurus.bitnet
Msc. Student INTERNET: zifrony@Math.Tau.Ac.IL
Dept. of CS ARPA: zifrony%taurus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Tel Aviv Univ. UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!taurus!zifrony
Israel CSNET: zifrony%taurus.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@
csnet-relay
--
Disclaimer: I DON'T represent Tel Aviv University. The opinions hereby
expressed are solely my own.zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET (05/09/89)
Doug Thompson writes: >"Away from the terminal". When am I away from the terminal? At the same >points when I'm away from any paper. In the car, walking down the street, >at the beach. Otherwise my portable with its built-in 19200 BAUD modem >is with me, and it's a whole lot lighter than the same 44Megabytes of data >would be on paper. Are you suggesting that I take my portable computer with me everyehere? For example, I'll sit in a caffee, sipping a glass of coffee, eating a croison and looking for the latest news in my portable (which is connected to the caffee's telephone line, surly). I find it a bit unprobable. The all picture seems to be ruined by the entry of a portable computer to this particular scene (The caffee, I mean). -- Doron Zifrony E-mail: BITNET: zifrony@taurus.bitnet Msc. Student INTERNET: zifrony@Math.Tau.Ac.IL Dept. of CS ARPA: zifrony%taurus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu Tel Aviv Univ. UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!taurus!zifrony Israel CSNET: zifrony%taurus.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@ csnet-relay -- Disclaimer: I DON'T represent Tel Aviv University. The opinions hereby expressed are solely my own.
harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) (05/09/89)
In article <2331.246511D1@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: > Phone speeds are comparable to ethernet,with 38 Kbaud transmission of text > being possible over voice grade lines today, 19200 BAUD being common. How do > you think all this news ends up on your computer for you to read? All of it I'm not sure where you get your stats; yes there ARE many electronic exchanges, and yes there are getting more all the time, so in the FUTURE, we can look forward to more or less clean lines (in the developed world, at any rate), BUT!!! it's not universal yet, and some lines are CRAP. One of our own local lines to the electronic exchange in Cambridge is duff, and we get it from time to time, and our EFFECTVE rate drops to maybe 100 baud, as opposed to the 1200 baud we normally put up with (but not for much longer, I hope); the news arrives overnight, and we've had 8 hour 'phone calls in the past (fortunately local...). As I've said before, it's still limited NOW, but maybe in a few years time there will be enough high quality lines for it to be considered `general'. -- ,---.'\ ( /@ )/ Nothing is true. /( _/ ) Everything is permitted. \,`---'
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/09/89)
In article <8905090030.AA04820@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, I'll think of something yet) writes: At this point, there are probably about as many TVs per capita as >telephones. That being the case, the methods used to deliver signals >to a TV are logical things to look at for getting newspaper text to a >computer. > It's already being done for special-purpose data. If you check with the uplink services for satellite TV stations you will find that they are putting data on subcarriers and in the vertical retrace interval. I'm involved in a project sending agricultural-related data on a subcarrier of WGN out of Chicago. It can be received by putting a box ahead of the video receiver at a dish that can pull in WGN. Most cable systems strip the data signals out but they probably wouldn't have to. Les Mikesell
usenet@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU (Usenet programs owner) (05/10/89)
My monthly minimum cable is < $20 My phone is $30 (Well actualy $75 with long distance :-) From: air@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Arthur Ernest Wright) Path: jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!air People's Technology | Participating in the war on apathy, ingnorance, and Arthur Ernest Wright| Stagnation, while simultaneusly ___ ___ ___ 1272 Willamette #404| working in the retail computer X@ @X (@ @) (X X) Eugene, Oregon 97401| equiptment nightmare. \o/ \X/ \o/
air@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Arthur Ernest Wright) (05/10/89)
For all those interested in the future of communications technology. _The_Media_Lab_ which is a semi informative book about TML at The MIT. I have enjoyed what I read of it. People's Technology | Participating in the war on apathy, ingnorance, and Arthur Ernest Wright| Stagnation, while simultaneusly ___ ___ ___ 1272 Willamette #404| working in the retail computer X@ @X (@ @) (X X) Eugene, Oregon 97401| equiptment nightmare. \o/ \X/ \o/
bowles@MICA.BERKELEY.EDU (Jeff A. Bowles) (05/10/89)
"The whole picture seems to be ruined by the entry of a portable computer to this particular scene." Maybe not a PC-clone, but something else. A half-century ago, the same thing would have been said about television, and a century ago, the same thing would have been said about the radio. And the same thing will be said three hundred years from now, when people go from "reading" the news to having a personal robot sit at the table and gossip with you. Jeff Bowles ps. The "300 years" part is probably too long, but I don't see such devices in the next fifty, that sit down and tell you the newest political jokes and ask if you've heard the one about the warlords of the Vegan empire... pps. Sorry if this has an "SF-LOVERS" flavor. But "it's just not right!" doesn't sound like the sort of argument I want to see in a list called "info-futures".
keshav@UCBARPA.BERKELEY.EDU (Keshav Srinivasan) (05/10/89)
G. L. Sicherman writes > the basic assumptions (standardization, uniformity, > stability, authority) fail miserably with the new technology This points out the need for authentication of news. Standard public key schemes for digital signatures should be enough. Two other points o Reputation effects are very important for news providers. When the number of providers is small, users will not have too much trouble assigning reputations to players (for example, I would believe a headline in the NY Times more readily than one in the National Enquirer). When the number of players grows large, this is difficult - which leads me to predict that users who require reliable news will be forced to subscribe to a `well-known' provider. o Wading through the news is something that Natural Language researchers have been trying for years. Are there any intelligent systems out there that people are aware of ? keshav
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (05/10/89)
In article <174@marvin.moncam.co.uk>, harry@moncam (Jangling Neck Nipper) writes: >Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper deliverer >chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? This is a fascinating question, one of the two that are still unsolved. Suppose you attempt to publish a city newspaper with 50,000 subscribers, each subscriber having his own profile, so that each receives a personalized newspaper. Option 1: modem transmission over voice lines. Suppose that you can transmit their copy to them over a 9600 baud modem to their computer, and that an issue has a megabyte of text. Suppose you can get 700 bytes per second of transmission, after encoding. This yields a time of 19841 hours of transmission time. Suppose that you can transmit over an 8-hour period, and that 20% of your time is taken up with dialing and other trivia that requires the use of a modem and phone line. This requires the use of 2977 phone lines and modems. How much does that cost? Option 2: optical fiber phone line transmission. People at Bellcore have been telling me that if they could only get someone else to pay for it, the operating companies would be glad to lay a 100Mbit fiber thread to my door. Suppose we had that in place, probably 10 to 15 years from now. Suddenly we can transmit at (say) 4 Mbyte per second, if our home computer can catch that fast (and in 10 years they'll be able to). Option 3: continuous transmission over cable. Suppose we transmit everything (the entire newspaper data base) 24 hours a day over cable TV, and let the home computer do the processing. How do we protect the data that the consumer isn't paying for? Can a PC/AT really process a newspaper? Bill
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (05/10/89)
In article <2330.246511CD@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug.Thompson@p101 (Doug Thompson) writes: >The news service or newspaper can transmit to you the "news" in exactly >thesame way they currently transmit it to whatever typesetting/output >device they use to put it on paper. Well, not really. Papers like USA Today, that are printed simultaneously in many parts of the country, use special high-bandwidth channels to transmit the master copy to the printers. It would be too expensive for thousands of channels. But perhaps a two-stage system would work. Bill
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/10/89)
In the future, the distinction between TV and print news will blur. You'll pop up a menu on the screen, point at stories that match your clipping program, and be given the option of viewing pictures, video, commentary, short written reports, detailed written reports or following hypertext like chains to other stories and references. In a good newspaper, you'll have pointers to reports and opinion not just by columnists, but by the actual participants in the story. Want to read Reagan's own comments? Select him on the menu. We may still call them newspapers, but they will not look much like them. And it will be impossible to censor, short of a police state. I speak from authority on this, as one of the world's first "victims" of computer censorship. In all the places where my work has been banned from computers, people have still be able to get it. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jb@aablue.UUCP (John B Scalia) (05/10/89)
In article <2329@titan.sw.mcc.com> janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) writes: >In article <174@marvin.moncam.co.uk>, harry@moncam (Jangling Neck Nipper) writes: >>Are we talking about news over the 'phone, or having the newspaper deliverer >>chuck us a ROM thro' the letterbox? > >This is a fascinating question, one of the two that are still unsolved. >Suppose you attempt to publish a city newspaper with 50,000 subscribers, >each subscriber having his own profile, so that each receives a personalized >newspaper. > >Option 1: modem transmission over voice lines. >Option 2: optical fiber phone line transmission. >Option 3: continuous transmission over cable. Of your options, I believe that the only practical solution, at least here in the U.S., is #3. At least in my area, cable TV is everywhere along with its supporting infrastructure, and the cable companies have already dealt with the personalization issues. I really think that should anyone care to start such a venture, the technology already exists. An improved interface to the incoming cable line could easily allow scanning headers to present a personalized news service to anyone, and the bandwidth of cable should be quite sufficient for most dailies. (I might shudder, however, at the thought of time required to transmit an entire Sunday edition of NY Times :-)) Even for those without cable, while the costs involved would be higher, it's easy enough to pluck the signal straight off one of the 2 dozen Clarke belt satellites already in orbit. I've seen it alluded to here, that USA Today uses a satellite channel for its distribution. I know this to be correct. However, a number of print media news services and magazine publishers do this as well, AP for example. I don't believe though that any standards exist regarding transmission data formats so that a single receiver could do all the work. (I don't use cable. I have my own satellite dish, so if I could get this ability, I'd use it.) To start with though, how about something a little more simple: an electronic library. Most books have little graphics and could be dealt with in an easy ASCII format. Hmmm. You browse through a list of titles, select one, and it's loaded to you from anywhere in the world. A simple mod to rn could even permit one to beginning reading and even place a "bookmark" when other demands became pressing. Just my $.02 -- A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice UUCP: {uunet!}aablue!jb Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who FidoNet: 1:157/697 wants to spend their life in an institution. EchoNet: US:OH/AKR.0
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (05/11/89)
In article <3226@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > In the future, the distinction between TV and print news will blur. (text deleted) > > We may still call them newspapers, but they will not look much like them. > And it will be impossible to censor, short of a police state. No more impossible than censoring TV and/or -- which doesn't happen as often now as it used to, but is certainly still possible. The Federal Censorship Commission does more than just assign frequencies and call letters, you know. > I speak > from authority on this, as one of the world's first "victims" of > computer censorship. In all the places where my work has been banned > from computers, people have still be able to get it. One, to be picky, it isn't your work, but that of submitters. Two, that's because nobody has prosecuted *you* personally, or confiscated your property. But what about a computer-newspaper publisher who is fined or has his/her equipment carted off? True, there might be small-scale operators who could move frequently, but a large commercial operation would have to play by the fedscists' rules or risk major penalties, just as TV/radio broadcasters do. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "Apple pies are made from apples, aren't they? And apples are nutritious. So eating apples pies is good for you." -- Fusser McGee, The First Of Three
air@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Arthur Ernest Wright) (05/11/89)
My laptop (Named Holly :-), often acompanys me on trips to the cafe, Though I usualy take my sketch book aswell. It is my story scratchpd. Writing little half page thoughts to be uploaded to my "Real" machine later for revision. I WANT a good digital sketch book! BTW: My laptop is a castaway puchased for 120.00 US. It weighs less than 4lbs has builtin 2.5" printer, and micro cassette drive. Epson HX-20. air@jacobs.cs.orst.edu People's Technology | Participating in the war on apathy, ingnorance, and Arthur Ernest Wright| Stagnation, while simultaneusly ___ ___ ___ 1272 Willamette #404| working in the retail computer X@ @X (@ @) (X X) Eugene, Oregon 97401| equiptment nightmare. \o/ \X/ \o/
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (05/11/89)
In article <4131@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Can a PC AT process a newspaper? > >Surely. I'm sure an Amiga could... If >you don't try to shove too many pixels around all at once, and don't >overwhelm the CGA display, the PC should do just fine. I was thinking more of the data-processing end of things. If one had a mass of bulk data, say 20Mbytes, to match against a user profile in an interesting way, how long would the PC have to crunch? Not terribly long, if the bulk data was arranged and indexed in some way that would make the profile matching trivial. Perhaps the continuous cable-TV transmission is the way to go. Bill
frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) (05/11/89)
In article <8905090927.AA04835@s2.Tau.Ac.IL> <zifrony%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >Are you suggesting that I take my portable computer with me everyehere? For >example, I'll sit in a caffee, sipping a glass of coffee, eating a croison and >looking for the latest news in my portable (which is connected to the caffee's >telephone line, surly). > >I find it a bit unprobable. The all picture seems to be ruined by the entry >of a portable computer to this particular scene (The caffee, I mean). Why? Don't assume that a portable computer has to be the size of a Compaq, or mains powered. I currently have a Z88, which is the size and weight of an A4 folder. I can carry it most places without trouble. Sure, this doesn't have a whomping great hard disk, for example, but it can already have >1MB of memory in it, and in a few years I expect machines of similar size to be substantially more capacious (order of magnitude increase, say) without resorting to actual mechanical hard drives. Even the new Toshiba and Zenith portables aren't that large or bulky, even with hard drives. As far as information-gathering goes, what's wrong with digital radio broadcasting? Cellular networks currently being installed in many parts of the world have a bandwidth easily wide enough to support dissemination of such information, and the size and cost of receivers is dropping almost daily (witness the cost of the second-generation cellular phones currently appearing in Europe). Dialling a remote host to pick up and send messages would be little trouble. Furthermore, a simple form of electronic newspaper has been available in Britain (and some other European countries too, I believe) for some years. The T.V. companies broadcast teletext information embedded in the outgoing picture signal in some of the off-screen scan lines, and a decoder board in the set can display this information instead of (or superimposed on) the normal picture. Several hundred "pages" of information are available on each of the four national channels, providing news, finance, travel, entertainment and sport information, features (mainly TV-related), complete broadcast schedules and capsule reviews of programmes, and even other things like competitions, stories, horoscopes (ah, well :-(), software, religious news and classified advertising. The information can be updated whenever necessary by the service provider, and the delay associated with picking up a new page is on the order of tens of seconds (assuming the receiver doesn't buffer all "interesting" pages already). The service is free to anyone with a suitably equipped receiver, of which there are millions in the U.K.. It is also possible to buy decoder boards which plug into a computer and provide it with the ability to capture this broadcast information. There is no reason why a portable couldn't do this, nor any reason why the volume of the service couldn't be stepped up enormously if the demand warranted it without in any way swamping broadcast channels. I certainly don't see any problems with having a notebook-sized computer that can keep in touch with others via cordless communications, and that can grab news and other information of value from the airwaves. Essentially, it could be built now. -- Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217
Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (05/12/89)
In a message of <10 May 89 23:05:37>, <Jangling Neck Nipper> writes: > I'm not sure where you get your stats; From the machines that I administer. > yes there ARE many electronic > exchanges, and yes there are getting more all the time, so in the > FUTURE,* we can look forward to more or less clean lines (in the developed > world,* at any rate), BUT!!! it's not universal yet, and some lines are CRAP. > One of our own local lines to the electronic exchange in Cambridge > is* duff, and we get it from time to time, and our EFFECTVE rate drops > to* maybe 100 baud, as opposed to the 1200 baud we normally put up with > (but not for much longer, I hope); the news arrives overnight, and > we've had 8 hour 'phone calls in the past (fortunately local...). I have watched a 19,200 BAUD Trailblazer pull off 4,000 BAUD on a line to Australia that was so noisy a voice conversation was impossible. The problem was at my end, a short in the wires that created horrible static. No other modem on earth I know of -- and no human ear could use that line. You can buy that modem today for about US$700. I know that most people don't know that it is already here, so I keep saying "It is ALREADY HERE". How the heck do you think this message is getting to you so quickly and cheaply anyhow?? I've had some experience using phone lines to the Third World, and yes they are often noisy, but not too noisy for a Trailblazer to get many thousands of BAUD throughput. The biggest problem is for *them* getting a line out, it's often easier to call into the Third World than to call out. And cheaper too. Some colleagues of mine are working in Senegal now in rural areas where there are no phone lines. They are using packet-radio with good success. I'm itching for a chance to put a Trailblazer on the radio and watch that BAUD rate go through the roof! These are not manufacturers' claims, these are real life experiences of the guy who has to make it work in the field. It does. > As I've said before, it's still limited NOW, but maybe in a few years > time there will be enough high quality lines for it to be considered > `general'. Your site may be limited, but "it", the potential that is, is a whole lot less limited today, and two years ago for that matter, than you think. With the addition of packet-radio there is no place in the world that cannot be reached by e-mail with only a very few thousands of dollars worth of computer, modem, and/or radio equipment. Cripes, these guys in Sengal are doing it with 64K 8-bit computers to keep the costs down, and it works! And it's cheap. The cost of setting up a state-of-the-art e-mail system with a 20Mb per day throughput capacity is considerably less than the price of a new car. =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
sac@Apple.COM (Steve Cisler) (05/14/89)
You may be 'stuck with phones' in Europe and never have cable, but when I hear about the library at Centre Pompidou in Paris moving video images over ISDN lines, it sounds like they have a pretty good phone system for some customers (obviously not too many just yet), so you may never need cable. Steve Cisler
zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET (05/14/89)
In article <1582@zen.co.uk>, Frank Wales said: >Why? Don't assume that a portable computer has to be the size of a >Compaq, or mains powered. I currently have a Z88, which is the size and >weight of an A4 folder. I can carry it most places without trouble. Sure, I didn't mean that a computer is too big to sit with it near the caffee table; I simply said that my picture of drinking coffee and reading a newspaper in the caffee is ruined by the entry of this device. A sort of breaking the romantic atmosphere. Maybe its just something we'll have to get used to in the future. I say this although I am very keen on new developmets in the field of elect- ronics and computers, which is one of the reasons I chose it for my occupation. -- Doron Zifrony E-mail: BITNET: zifrony@taurus.bitnet Msc. Student INTERNET: zifrony@Math.Tau.Ac.IL Dept. of CS ARPA: zifrony%taurus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu Tel Aviv Univ. UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!taurus!zifrony Israel CSNET: zifrony%taurus.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@ csnet-relay -- Disclaimer: I DON'T represent Tel Aviv University. The opinions hereby expressed are solely my own.
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (05/15/89)
In article <8905141355.AA20864@s4.Tau.Ac.IL> <zifrony%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >In article <1582@zen.co.uk>, Frank Wales said: >>Why? Don't assume that a portable computer has to be the size of a >>Compaq, or mains powered. I currently have a Z88, which is the size and >>weight of an A4 folder. I can carry it most places without trouble. > >Sure, I didn't mean that a computer is too big to sit with it near the caffee >table; I simply said that my picture of drinking coffee and reading a newspaper >in the caffee is ruined by the entry of this device. A sort of breaking >the romantic atmosphere. Maybe its just something we'll have to get used to >in the future. I think the definition of what composes a romantic atmosphere will change in the future to include whatever technology we develop. For example: at the beginning of the 20th century I doubt many people would have found cars romantic, yet the automobile has become part of the contemporary American aesthetic. Actually, I think this is already happening. Take a look at William Gibson's novels and short stories for a good example. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (06/04/89)
> In article <174@marvin.moncam.co.uk>, harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling > Neck Nipper) writes: > > ... > to ethernet, it's just not going to be practical, is it? The average, > 20 page full size (ie, not tabloid - does it have a name?) newspaper > must require several magabytes, including pictures, and ROMs ain't > that cheap either, so what *are* we talking about here??? Well, a "broadhseet" has twice as much space per page as a tabloid. Pictures require a lot of bytes of data to transmit and they also require compatible software and hardware for adequate display. Text, however, requires one byte per character, and there is a widely used standard for the transmission or translation of that data. On a tabloid page you have something like 80 column inches and in one column inch you have no more than 200 bytes. So a tabloid page (of 9 point text on 10 point leading with a five column [11.5 pica] format) can at most contain 16,000 characters, or 16K of data. Compressed, that would be about 8K and ten pages of that can be transmitted over off-the-shelf modems, like the Telebit Trailblazer, the USR HST, the Hayes 9600 or any V32 modem in a one minute telephone call. So a 20 page broadsheet, text only, in ascii form, would take about four minutes to pass over the modem. Because ASCII allows us to use only one byte for each character, it is quite efficient compared to graphic means of digitizing a "picture" of a character, or anything else. That's why e-mail is so much more efficient than FAX for instance. E-mail sends one byte per character while FAX, or any pictorial representation, requires one byte for each 1/300th of a square inch, or something like that. However, FAX provides an interesting index of graphic transmission. FAX can move three pages a minute, that's a 8 1/2" x 11" page, or one half of a tabloid page or one fourth of a broadsheet page. So a broadsheet page, complete with pictures, would take 1 1/3 minutes to transmit with current FAX techniques. So, with straight ascii you can get five pages a minute and with FAX techniques you can move most of a page a minute. FAX includes the pictures, ascii of course doesn't. Nevertheless, with distributed networking where the source system distributes a five minute file to, say, 100 other systems each of whom distribute to another 100, etc., a very few tiers can move the data at 9600 over modems to very many users very quickly. Where you have deticated lines, ethernets, LANs, etc., the data throughput rates are, of course, much, much higher. In other words, getting the daily newspaper on your home PC is really quite feasible with moderately-priced, off-the-shelf hardware. It is my guess that 90% of the value of a newspaper lies in the text, and only about 10% lies in the pictures. That is just a guess, but the point is that a newspaper without pictures is still a valuable item - it doesn't become worthless by removing the pictures. =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant)) (06/06/89)
In article <2487.2489FC06@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: [lots of good stuff deleted] DATA RATE QUESTIONS >However, FAX provides an interesting index of graphic transmition. >FAX can move three pages a minute, that's a 8 1/2" x 11" page, or one >half of a tabloid page or one fourth of a broadsheet page. So a >broadsheet page, complete with pictures, would take 1 1/3 minutes to >transmit with current FAX techniques. One should be careful in using FAX estimates. Most current use of fax is for LOW density transmition (of char data no less), not pictures. [there is a company, in fact, who makes forms specifically designed to be "nice" to the fax's compression algorithm. Fax used for "real" pictures (which is what you want) would be considerably slowwwer than fax used for a typed contract page. UTILITY QUESTIONS >Nevertheless, with distributed networking where the source system >distributes a five minute file to, say, 100 other systems each of whom >distribute to another 100, etc., a very few tiers can move the data at >9600 over modems to very many users very quickly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Whoa now, before you start using the phone system for "broadcast" type work, remember that the trunk lines are a shared resource. Many "plans" like this work only if just a few % of the people use them. That's no reason not to do it, but means that "everyone's newspaper is on the computer" still requires a much different (and bigger) infrastructure. >It is my guess that 90% of the value of a newspaper lies in the text, >and only about 10% lies in the pictures. That is just a guess, but the >point is that a newspaper without pictures is still a valuable item - >it doesn't become worthless by removing the pictures. The Wall Street Journal is a case in point. MY ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY on the WHOLE IDEA One other problem/consideration. The value of a newspaper (as opposed to television and journals) is that detailed information is QUICKLY available if I want it [see story inside]. [On TV it is not available or selectable, in a journal it is not timely.] So I can replace 90-98% of the content with "headline news paragraphs" IF I can punch a "more news" button and get the whole story in say 5-60 seconds. This "on demand" bandwidth is hard to provide cheaply for a lot of users. Unless I can do at least that, my newspaper does it cheaper and easier. The electronic newspaper also costs: my phone dedication (pre ISDN), my need for a screen (can i take it to the john?, to the beach?), my inability to clip (i need a printer?), and divide and share (now i need a screen for me [business/travel] wife [classifieds/home] 2 for the kids [funnies & fashion]). IF i can store a lot, i get a better "save" mechanism (and postprocessing!); and IF the world cooperates and makes news cheap (HA!) i can get keyed reference into extended data on demand for followup. THOSE are the real advantages. BUT STOP SAYING IT'S CHEEP TO DO WHAT THE NEWSPAPER ALREADY DOES - IT AINT. Dave "electronics is just a little bit expensive" Cameron
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/09/89)
[ discussion of electronic Newspapers and how to implement such a network to
everyone. Phone lines couldn't handle the data]
How about using existing Cable TV? There are many such experimantal networks
already in existance. One in Japan, Q-something-or-other. Basically it
integrates the phone, cable TV, vidtex, and a computer network such as
compuserve all into one interactive cable system.
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
Help fight continental drift.snewton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steven Newton) (06/14/89)
One solution to the inability of either telephone's twisted-pair or cable's coax to carry enough info fast enough could be fiber optics. I don't have the exact figures, but I recall reading that compared to either of the other technologies, fiber optic cable has HUGE bandwidth. Since GTE Sprint already boasts of an all-fiber network, this changeover may be on the way already, and would be standard by the time the electronic newspaper is with us. Steve _______________________________________________________________________________ "When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic." -- John Kenneth Galbraith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elm@chilli.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) (06/14/89)
In article <22041@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> snewton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steven Newton) writes:
% One solution to the inability of either telephone's twisted-pair
%or cable's coax to carry enough info fast enough could be fiber optics.
%I don't have the exact figures, but I recall reading that compared
%to either of the other technologies, fiber optic cable has HUGE
%bandwidth. Since GTE Sprint already boasts of an all-fiber network,
%this changeover may be on the way already, and would be standard
%by the time the electronic newspaper is with us.
According to a project presentation in my operating systems class, 90%
of the inter-exchange communication will be fiber optic by 1990-91.
The big problem is the wiring from the central exchange to your house,
which is still almost entirely copper. There's an awful lot of it,
too. Figure 100 million telephone numbers in the US, with each an
average of 3 miles from the central office. That's still 300 MILLION
miles of copper wire sitting under the streets. I'm sure that the
length of wire between central offices is much shorter, because there
are so many fewer of them. Also, if you introduce fiber optic lines,
you need new equipment on the ends. For central offices, this is
no problem; just buy a new box. For homes, that's 100 million new
boxes to convert fiber optic to electrical (unless you want to
rewire houses, too). It'll happen, but not too soon.
Incidentally, now that the phone company can start offering cable TV
services, you may see fiber optics accelerated.
ethan
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ethan miller ## 608-8 evans hall ## (415) 642-8248 | elm@ginger.berkeley.edu
computer science grad student, uc berkeley | {...}!ucbvax!ginger!elm
"You don't ask God for His ID!" -- "Bones" McCoy | ginger!elm@UCBVAX.BITNETech@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (ned.horvath) (06/17/89)
From article <14617@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by elm@chilli.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller): > The big problem is the wiring from the central exchange to your house, > which is still almost entirely copper. There's an awful lot of it, > too...It'll happen, but not too soon. > Incidentally, now that the phone company can start offering cable TV > services, you may see fiber optics accelerated. BellCoRe expects to have fiber in the loop (that's the Central-Office to Terminal Equipment part of the circuit) roughly 50% deployed by 1995; the other half of the loop plant may take another 20 years. Naturally urban areas will get the goods first, since there's more "bang for the buck" -- and more business users willing to foot the bill for digging up the streets -- in going there first. As for the cost of converting glass to copper at the protector, that cost is completely swamped by the cost of replacing the copper in the first place. Also, to get an idea of the bandwidth involved, a single fiber has something like 10^9. Yup, a gigahertz. That's 250 NTSC TV channels. Or 50 uncompressed HDTV channels. The collected works of Shakespeare in a couple of seconds. Or Dickens. Actually, the only thing that might prevent this kind of service would be if the Cable companies can generate enough clout to prevent it. With that kind of bandwidth, anybody with a satellite dish can feed his friends and neighbors all over town, using only a small fraction of the bandwidth. Anybody with a HandyCam can narrowcast the Little League games. And that's just the frivolous use. 1 GHz is 100 Ethernets. My diskless workstation has the whole library of congress online; you and I can share a file server that isn't co-located with either of us. Shucks, we can share a screen from across the country. The potential impact for disabled folks is tremendous. If Grandma is unable to attend the highschool play, no big deal -- she can watch in real time. Granted, we could sender the VCR tape today, but we'll be able to go "live." The mind boggles. And it's coming soon... =Ned Horvath=
KROVETZ@cs.umass.EDU (06/17/89)
Ned Horvath made a comment about how soon fibre optics are coming for local phone lines. I'm very glad to see it's going to be so soon. However, he overestimates the time it will take to transmit the works of Shakespeare. He says it would take a few seconds, but the collected works are available from the Oxford Text Archive and only take up about 6 Megabytes. They'd go by in the blink of an eye! -bob krovetz@cs.umass.edu (internet) krovetz@umass (bitnet)