Re: Re[2]- White Pine "Plans

John D. Lauer (johnlaue@umich.edu)
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
>achieving
>that by compressing a data stream and then sending it at a slower
>speed.
>Ultimately you will need to have a connection with more bandwidth
>such
>as ISDN (1 or more 56K links), data over cable-tv broadband, or other
>to
>support the demanding video applications.
>
>Ken Latta, University of Michigan Health Service
>klatta@umich.edu
>
>--------------------------------------
>Date: 5/29/95 17:19
>To: Ken Latta
>From: bj.culpepper@pscmail.ps.net
>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.
>
>BJ
>bj.culpepper@ps.net
>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.
>The
>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
>trick
>special-purpose coprocessor chip, but for now...
>
>If they think that it just needs some cleanup, polish, and a few more
>
>features...!
>
>I just don't think users really understand what atomic rocket science
>it is
>to develop efficent _and_ fast compression techniques, and then what
>coding
>it can be like when you are looking up individual instruction clock
>cycles
>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,
>etc.
>
>Bearing in mind that CU-SeeMe is free and I have no biz commenting on
>it,
>the user interface (the Windows version, anyway) is kinda
>crummy...the
>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
>this
>case, I think my hat is safe.
>________________________________________
>
>Steve Loboyko
>Software Engineer
>VSI Solutions, Incorporated
>11285 Elkins Rd Suite G-1
>Roswell GA 30076
>
>slob@mindspring.com
>http://www.mindspring.com/~slob/home.html
>
>________________________________________
><Zero length text item>
>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by mail.uhs.umich.edu with SMTP;29 May 1995 17:19:36 -0400
>Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
>listproc.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA17624; Mon,
>29 May 1995 16:42:31 -0400
>Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by
>listproc.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA17590 for
><CU-SEEME-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu>; Mon, 29 May 1995 16:41:12
>-0400
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id
>QAA25670 for CU-SEEME-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu; Mon, 29 May 1995
>16:42:59 -0400
>Received: from gateway.ps.net (gateway.ps.net [192.131.85.2]) by
>cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA25660 for
><cu-seeme-l@cornell.edu>; Mon, 29 May 1995 16:42:56 -0400
>Received: from dcuh029.dcu.ps.net by gateway.ps.net with SMTP id
>AA13307
> (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <cu-seeme-l@cornell.edu>);
> Mon, 29 May 1995 15:42:44 -0500
>Received: by dcuh029.dcu.ps.net
> (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA14421; Mon, 29 May 1995 15:39:30 -0500
>Received: by pscmail.ps.net via Worldtalk with X400 (3.0.4/1.64)
> id WT00268.87; Mon, 29 May 1995 15:39:28 CDT
>Message-Id:
><M1276492.002.cxda1.4299.950529203910Z.CC-MAIL*/O=CCMAIL/PRMD=PSC/ADMD=MCI/
C=US/@MHS>
>Date: 29 May 95 22:31:00 -0500
>Reply-To: bj.culpepper@pscmail.ps.net
>Sender: owner-CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
>From: bj.culpepper@pscmail.ps.net
>To: <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>
>Subject: Re[2]: White Pine "Plans"
>X-To: slob@mindspring.com, cu-seeme-l@cornell.edu
>X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN