Re: 28.8 not all that bad

Clark Germann (cgermann@mosquito.frcc.cccoes.edu)
Sun, 12 Mar 1995 01:30:56 -0700 (MST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Bob Stringfield, ODCSPER: "Re: ip for CeBit ?"
Previous message: Byron Thomason: "28.8 not all that bad"
In reply to: Byron Thomason: "28.8 not all that bad"
Next in thread: Roie Gat: "Re: 28.8 not all that bad"

I've great luck with 28.8 slip point-to-point if the sending parties
reduce their settings to 15 max, 5 min. Consequently, I never had any
luck receiving from reflectors. Any ideas?
Clark

On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Byron Thomason wrote:

> I encourage Mr. Kennerly to work on a version of cuseeme directed
> specifically at the slip dial up bandwidth. I'm logged onto Nasa right now
> and I think it holds great potential at 28.8. The picture updates nicely
> and if 28.8 was targeted many more people would be able to truly enjoy the
> cuseeme enhancement of Internetting. Boy, was that good or what?
>
>

Next message: Bob Stringfield, ODCSPER: "Re: ip for CeBit ?"
Previous message: Byron Thomason: "28.8 not all that bad"
In reply to: Byron Thomason: "28.8 not all that bad"
Next in thread: Roie Gat: "Re: 28.8 not all that bad"