Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:04:06 -0400 From: "Jacob M. Parnas" <jparnas@jparnas.cybercom.net> To: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> Cc: Richard Foulk <richard@pegasus.com>, hardware@freebsd.org, bsdi-users@bsdi.com Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN Message-ID: <199607110404.AAA00651@jparnas.cybercom.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 06 Jul 1996 10:58:52 EDT. <Pine.3.89.9607061043.A22356-0100000@zoo.toronto.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.3.89.9607061043.A22356-0100000@zoo.toronto.edu>you write: >> >Cable has a good chance of blowing ISDN away. Much faster and cheaper. And >> >it will be available in many places this year. More, next. >> >> Cable is a pain. It works only one way. If you want to send a large file >> you still have to go slow. And, you still need to be a member of a ISP >> as you can't write to cable, from what I've read. > >Depends on how good your local cable system is. The cable-data system >that Rogers Cable is introducing in the Toronto area is two-way (with >symmetrical bandwidth, amazingly enough, or at least that's the way it was >in the prototype system). That's wonderful, but unfortunately rare. Also, unlike ISDN, its not portable to much if not most of North America and other countries. >Incidentally, harking back to the original theme of this discussion :-), >the hardware used for the Rogers prototype talked to the computers by >Ethernet. As pointed out earlier, isn't ethernet tcp/ip based or some other network protocol based. What if one wants to communicate below that level? Otherwise, if its inexpensive enough, fast enough and doesn't use unnecessary hardware, I think it would be fine. > Henry Spencer > henry@zoo.toronto.edu Jacob
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607110404.AAA00651>