Re: Re[2]- White Pine "Plans

John D. Lauer (
Tue, 30 May 1995 12:37:41 -0400

True enough. Modems are just about as fast as they will ever get. The
phone company long ago put a filter on the line to your house to allow for a
maximum of 3000Hz worth of "bandwidth". Theoretically, on a perfectly clean
line, you can achieve around 32 kbps with 3000Hz to work with. But we don't
live in a theoretic world. So don't believe that modems over POTS lines
will ever go faster than 28.8. The phone company knows this and that's why
they created ISDN.

At 10:37 AM 5/30/95 -0400, Ken Latta wrote:
> Reply to: RE>Re[2]: White Pine "Plans"
>Don't expect endless upgrades in the speed of modems. The phone
>company infrastructure is the limiting factor in how fast you can
>transmit over regular phone lines. The appearance of additional speed
>can be provided by using compression. So the 28.8 modems are
>that by compressing a data stream and then sending it at a slower
>Ultimately you will need to have a connection with more bandwidth
>as ISDN (1 or more 56K links), data over cable-tv broadband, or other
>support the demanding video applications.
>Ken Latta, University of Michigan Health Service
>Date: 5/29/95 17:19
>To: Ken Latta
>You make some good points but there are aspects that if White Pine
>plays its cards right, will come out on top.
>Modems in the future will support higher data rates. Only a couple
>of years ago engineers believed that the fastest you could
>communicate over an unconditioned phone line was 9600 bps with some
>measure of reliability. We are in the 28.8 era with up to 230kbps
>compression. Modems are expected to use printer ports in the
>future due to the higher throughput possible. By the way, I liked
>the 300 baud thing....
>Secondly, if WhitePine includes all these features, there should be
>an option to turn things on or off. If you are on a LAN, you may
>want everything - WAN, only a few features - internet or dial-ip,
>perhaps the minimal as possible (okay picture with sound).
>Controlling the frame rate is a good example. If they turn
>everything on without leaving the user with an option, then they
>will be just like their competitors. Even I would not want the
>product then.
>I am interested in 32bit versions (which should compress/decompress
>faster) for Windows, or/and an otimized native PowerPC versions.
>I just hope they put out free beta versions, probably only allowing
>point to point, or connectivity for 5 minutes, etc. That will help
>bait the hook.
>Perot Systems Corporation
>|| Thought for Today: Use the other hand.....
>> Year end enhanced commercial version
>> Estim. street price $100
>> QuickTime Savvy
>> Imporved frame rate (faster than the 12 frame limit)
>> Compatibility to the H.320 and T.120 standard
>> Application Sharing
>> White board
>> Improved Audio
>> Windows NT based reflector
>All this, with 300 baud modems (_my comment_:))
>I really don't think that these people know what they are up against.
>CU-delvelopers are probably privately snickering about the above
>list. Meebe
>on some future Power PC-type chip running at about 400 Mhz, or some
>special-purpose coprocessor chip, but for now...
>If they think that it just needs some cleanup, polish, and a few more
>I just don't think users really understand what atomic rocket science
>it is
>to develop efficent _and_ fast compression techniques, and then what
>it can be like when you are looking up individual instruction clock
>in obscure manuals. The CU algorithm is probably a good balance of
>what the
>"average" pc or mac can do, audio, network "stack" speed limitations,
>Bearing in mind that CU-SeeMe is free and I have no biz commenting on
>the user interface (the Windows version, anyway) is kinda
>reason, of course, is that the developers have probably devoted 90%
>of their
>time in the compression, 9% in compatibility with particular PC/MACS,
> and
>1% in the UI.
>I had to eat my hat before concerning how well iphone works, but in
>case, I think my hat is safe.
>Steve Loboyko
>Software Engineer
>VSI Solutions, Incorporated
>11285 Elkins Rd Suite G-1
>Roswell GA 30076
><Zero length text item>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by with SMTP;29 May 1995 17:19:36 -0400
>Received: from (localhost []) by
> (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA17624; Mon,
>29 May 1995 16:42:31 -0400
>Received: from ( []) by
> (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA17590 for
><>; Mon, 29 May 1995 16:41:12
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) id
>QAA25670 for; Mon, 29 May 1995
>16:42:59 -0400
>Received: from ( []) by
> (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA25660 for
><>; Mon, 29 May 1995 16:42:56 -0400
>Received: from by with SMTP id
> (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <>);
> Mon, 29 May 1995 15:42:44 -0500
>Received: by
> ( id AA14421; Mon, 29 May 1995 15:39:30 -0500
>Received: by via Worldtalk with X400 (3.0.4/1.64)
> id WT00268.87; Mon, 29 May 1995 15:39:28 CDT
>Date: 29 May 95 22:31:00 -0500
>To: <>
>Subject: Re[2]: White Pine "Plans"
>X-PH: (Cornell Modified)
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN