People such as yourself dismiss technology too quickly calling it
old and inferior. If it's not glitzy and the latest thing on the market
it can't possibly be any good. The constant upgrade! upgrade! upgrade!
cycle some people seem to go into all the time never takes into account
if the upgrade is going to be benefical (if not damaging). Take UUCP over
POP3.. I know a ton of ISP's that will not touch UUCP because it's old..
My gosh you have this FANCY thing called POP3 or dedicated connections
that you can use.. You go and tell a business that they can install a 386
that they have available (or get used for $50 with monitor (mono)) and a
2400 baud modem OR get a 486 or pentium and run some POP3 splicer which
actually does not do the job properly and say 'well.. there is no real
difference in what it does.. it just costs six times as much'.. See how
many of them jump on your offer. I suppose I could give them all
dedicated ISDN connectins since that is the latest thing. But not every
business needs that kind of expense so they can write the odd letter from
their desk..
Old protocol? No... Mature protocol.. Yes...
Cheers,,
Paul
-----------
Paul Andersen paul@egate.net
System Administrator T: +1 (416) 447-8505x23
E-Gate Communications Inc. F: +1 (416) 447-6447
Toronto, Ontario P: +1 (416) 382-9316
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Prof Jake Messinger wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, William Sommers wrote:
>
> > - The "dirt cheap 14.4K modems" aspect is irrelevant. I don't feel it
> > is our place to tell customers what they can and cannot run on their
>
> I feel just the opposite. I dont want customers who cannot afford to go
> get a 14400 modem.
>
> > end. If they want to use a 640K '286 box with 1200/2400 modem,
> > that's their business -- we have a number of these types, who are
> > quite happy just to have access to email. I don't personally want
> > to discriminate based on either personal choice or what might be
> > considered socio-economic factors.
>
> But that is business. If you feel you can handle those customers then do
> so. I dont want them.
>
> > - A significant number of our customers travel regularly, especially
> > in South America and various Pacific islands. Not only is line
> > quality highly inconsistent, but they are often using equipment such
> > as HP palmtops or PDAs (like our guy cycling around the world with a
> > Newton, filing regular reports to his web site) equipped with 2400
> > only. Some take our advice and open an ibm.net account for the
>
> Most all the palmtops support 9600. I have a Casio 7500, a sharp, and a
> gateway handbook.
>
> > majority of this access; others prefer to call in direct -- again,
> > it's the customer's choice.
>
> If they really want to do that, then maybe you should set up a portmaster
> just for internationa/2400 baud calls.
>
> > - The cellular side's already been addressed -- what might be fine for
> > folks such as you down in the flatlands of TX doesn't necessarily
> > apply here in the hilly, congested-cell Bay Area.
>
> Flatlands? Guadalupe peak is over 9000 feet. Why does everyone think Texas
> is a big open prarie? We are so big that we encompass just about EVERY
> terrian in the country. We have some of the largest pine forests, our
> mountains are as high as the Alps, and we have 650 miles of tropical coast
> line. (2 cents for Texas). And we dont have earthquakes!!!!!!! We dont
> even have race riots here. Its too hot and besides, we are all inside our
> homes surfing the net on our cheap isdn lines!
>
> And as for congestion, you do not hold the top position. Houston and
> Dallas have so many cell fones, pagers, etc, that they had to add 2
> additional area codes just in the past few months! I see new cell towers
> pop up once a week around town.
>
> Okay so back to the point....
>
> > On the ISP side:
> >
> > For the most part, it really doesn't matter, since we'll always run some
> > amount of legacy equipment to support the niche customers. However, as we
> > set up new POPs we run into various "problems".
>
> Well then that is how to address the issue. I would suggest that if an ISP
> had a small amount of customers needing 2400 baud, then they should set up
> a separate portmaster, like a PM 11, and a separate pool of modems.
>
> > Most of our new locations (20-50 mile distance from the NOC) are going in as
> > extended PRI runs -- there is no physical presence at which to place legacy
> > equipment. Even if there were a shelf on which to place it, we really
> > wouldn't want to saddle every POP with additional hardware (and the
> > accompanying maintenance considerations) just to service some relatively
> > minor percentage.
>
> I see. Hmm, well, I guess if YOU want to support them, then thats fine.
> But my preference would be to say "9600 baud or higher". I dont think Id
> loose too many customers, at least not customers I make money from. Then I
> wouldnt have to have a separate term server just for them.
>
> > So we end up stratifying the service offerings based on the customer's
> > location -- something we've gone to some lengths and expense to avoid all
> > along -- as well as add burden to both the support staff and the customers
> > in order to deal with these types of issues.
>
> Its a burden ISP's must carry if they want to support customers with
> legacy equipment.
>
> > Bottom line: I'd prefer to see support for all ITU-T standards, but if
> > there are engineering and technical considerations (such as RAM
> > space/processor limitations in the DSPs to add legacy modulations), then so
> > be it, we'll live and I'll lose little if any sleep.
>
> Okay so basically you agree then, that if its a BIG DEAL, then the lack of
> 2400 baud support is not going to kill you? I think that is probably the
> general consensus. I wouldnt fault Livingston or any mfgr that decided to
> NOT support anything under 9600. Its a decision they make (I would
> hope) based on customer needs.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that if isp's just stop supporting 2400
> baud, then it will FORCE the legacy users either up or out. And it
> accounts for such a SMALL percentage of the PAYING market, that I doubt it
> will hurt the industry. In fact, I think it would be doing those users a
> favor.
>
>
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
> 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)
>
>
>