mail and financial hubs come to mind. even though faster and
better is cheaper than it used to be, why upgrade a link that does
hundreds to millions of really small "total byte count" transactions
daily...
how fast can you transfer 256 bytes back and forth when you
process a credit card? :)
to the best of my knowledge financial institutions have a time
limit on "is money there, and give it to me" processing time and doesnt it
take quite a bit longer to connect at a higher data rate with the
negotiation process? if so... this is quite REAL... $$$ are very real...
i believe livingston made the right choice in terms of
compatibility... their internal release timeframe is their business and
they are accountable for it reguardless of the new code.
what im wondering is do the new "digital modems" support class
(insert number here) faxing or whatever... i pry missed it in the
announcement or havent bothered to go look....
--->
Robert H. Hanson Cutting Edge Communications, Inc.
Otis Orchards, Wa. Regional Commercial Internet Service Provider
(509) 927-9541 email: roberth@cet.com - http://www.cet.com/
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Prof Jake Messinger wrote:
> Maybe there are some issues I am not considering or not aware of but here
> are my thoughts...
>
> It is utterly ridiculous that this arguement even exists. Why should
> Livingston spend time making their product downward compatible with a
> standard developed 10 years ago? I would rather that they spend time
> developing new products and supporting products which work with today's
> technology.
>
> I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a proponent of 2400 baud
> support. The cost of a 14,400 modem (which WILL operate at 2400 baud if
> necessary) is $50 USD and Ive seen used ones for $30. So price should not
> be an issue. I just threw away about 20 external and internal 2400 baud
> modems because I had no use for them.
>
> Then could it be a technical issue? One person mentioned something about
> cellular calls and that their average successful connection is 2400 baud.
> I don't think this accounts for much of the market. And for that small
> part of the market that needs cellular internet connection, they most
> probably could afford better equipment or better service in order to
> achieve 9600 baud or better. I certainly would NOT put up with cellular
> internet connection at anything less.
>
> Okay now I will put myself in Livingston's shoes. They are market driven.
> They sell what the majority of the market wants. I dont think the majority
> of their market wants or needs 2400 baud support. I just dont see how that
> could be possible.
>
> On the other hand, if 2400 baud support is something that could easily be
> added, then they might as well do it. They must consider the costs of any
> software redesign and its implications. Sometimes fixing one problem
> causes another. I am sure they have considered this.
>
> My personal feeling is as long as there are people that say that they must
> have 2400 baud support, the market is holding itself back! I say we should
> forget anything below 14400 and look to the future, which by the way,
> should logically move away from using analog technology to digital. Modems
> have always been a backwards way to connect networks together. They
> take digital signals, modulate them to analog sounds in the range of 3 to
> 3.3khz so that the phone co equipment can carry it on equipment intended
> for voice, then demodulate it on the other end back into digital data.
> This is silly to do when one considers that the phone co CO's connect via
> digital lines.
>
> Which brings me to another arguement, and that is, why why WHY does the
> phone co charge MORE for digital lines? There is less for them to do, less
> equipment, less problems, more control. And why do term adapters still
> cost so much more than modems? Arent they basically just a protocol
> converter? I guess I'll have to ask that on the comp.modems llist.
>
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
> Jake Messinger 713-772-6690 jake@ams.com
> Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. 800-324-8594 jake@uh.edu
> Houston, Texas http://www.ams.com/~jake
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
>
> (Don't steal my squigglies)
>
>