Conference 7.286::digital

    Re .0
    
    While I can't really fault your argument the world seems to be moving
    in the other direction. More towards PCs and the computation being done
    on your desk. I too have survived really well with a VT220 that
    connects me to a worldwide network. But let me tell you a true story
    that began to open my eyes:
    
    Currently I'm doing an MBA at Northeastern. One of courses I've just
    finished is Economics II (mostly microeconomics). In order to illustate
    the real use of demand curves, price elasticity, cost curves etc the
    class was given this PC based game based on LOTUS 123 and formed into
    teams to run competing CD player companies in an industry.
    
    Each week we had to make our decisions and submit a disk. First let me
    jump to the end of the story. I was absolutely amazed at what a
    spreadsheet (LOTUS 123) could me made to do. It made everything so
    automatic.
    
    Anyway when I first got my PC disk I realized how PC illiterate I was.
    About the only thing I knew about MS-DOS was that the drives were
    called A:, B: and C: and to change your default directory (disk) you
    typed A: or B: or C:. To run something you did a DIRECTORY and could
    type in the name of any file that had a .EXE extension. Well anyway
    I went to a classmate from LOTUS and asked for some PC help. I told him
    how little I knew about PCs. He also knew that I had an extensive
    software engineering/management background. His comment was something
    along the lines of:
    
      Dave, now I understand why Digital has been doing so badly lately.
      If you guys don't know anything about PCs you must be totally out of
      touch with the marketplace.
    
    Made me think. .0 is exactly what I'd have said a few months ago.
    In fact I'm still having difficulty understanding exactly why a
    PC/disk/CPU on your desk beats out a dumb terminal with a high
    bandwidth link. But I am impressed with the sort of software that
    exists on a PC.
    
    Dave

.0> I envision connecting a minimal workstation to my cable TV hookup.  

	For this topic in general there is a lot of discussion and
	information in RUMOR::TELEWORK. For specific information on
	connecting your workstation to cable TV check out topic 15.

			Alfred

    I know that most of the technology for this type of networking already
    exists.  What I see happening is that many consumers will have access
    to existing software and hardware systems, want access to it from home
    and won't want to duplicate it.  They would just want to be able to
    access it.
    
    Peripherals for this type of thing might include dumb laser printers
    that can be controlled over the network, adapters that can allow
    standard I/O boards to be easily connected, software that can allow a
    user to emulate responses from home as though at the desk at work and
    so forth.  There could be a market for personal use of big machines on
    the network.  There could be a market for account backups over the
    network.  That kind of thing.  
    
    "Dumb workstations" would be like PCs except they would be heavy on
    communications, light on memory and CPU, and heavy on peripheral ports.
    
    
    Steve

    Here's a surprise: since about a year ago there's been a
    Digital DF296 modem that will operate at 9600 baud over
    ordinary phone lines, according to the DECdirect catalog.
    
    I can't determine though whether this product can be used
    for the humble purpose of connecting an ordinary terminal
    into an ordinary dial-in port.

re: .4

Yep.  I have one at home.  The question is, is the modem on the system that .0
is dialing into also a 9600 baud modem.  If it is, then .0 still have to
convince someone to buy it for him.  The last time I checked, the MLP on this
modem was almost $600, meaning it will cost some cost center ~$200 to purchase.

Bob

Re:<<< Note 1406.5 by SCAACT::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow" >>>

I just called DECdirect, the customer list price for a DF296-DA desktop V.32
9600 Baud modem is $1,285. As pointed out, this assumes a companion modem on
the host end to dial into.

Lee

    I was thinking on the order of Ethernet speeds and of not having to use
    the phone lines.  The stuff I've been reading indicates that these
    speeds will be necessary for future applications.  I suspect that even 
    9600 baud can seem slow if you're using a remote system to run a dumb
    laser printer at your home or if you're having the remote system update
    a high-resolution screen.  I've not researched this heavily, so I could
    be wrong.  I don't expect the home user to have too much demand for
    system backups over the net.  Instead, I'd expect such services to be
    done over a different, perhaps fiberoptic, network attached to the
    remote system or on-site backups.
    
    Steve 

    BTW, I assume that the networking technology needed already exists.
    I suspect that we're talking about two major efforts:
    
    	1. Marketing and committing to a high-bandwidth network that
           includes emphasis on home connections.
    
    	2. Developing and supporting a really cheap workstation with really
    	   cheap peripherals that is designed with the network.
    
    I wouldn't be surprised if the main costs of the workstation were for a
    high-resolution monitor ($800?) and a high-bandwidth communications box
    ($1200?).  At about $2000 it might compete well with PCs (WAG, of
    course).
    
    Steve

Ethernet on Cable Television (ETV) is here now and is being sold by Digital.
There is a notsfile dedicated to ETV at RUMOR::ETV.

    Nice pointer.  I'll be spending some time there now ...
    
    Steve

    Re .1 (Garrod).  Once again I'm dumfounded by our arrogance
    (ignorance).  Sat in a PC Integration conference a few months back
    where in the presentor claimed we are the only company in the F-500
    which does not have a PC on every desk!!  I believe it.
    
    I belonged to a customer forum the last few years.  A customer told
    us that they not only have PC's on every desk, but that they are
    replaced as often as twice a year....as soon as more power or
    functionality is available.  They don't have to order them.  They
    are considered as commodities.
    
    Now, if I could only get a terminal and 1200 baud modem for my house.
    But, it took me seven months to get this VT220, so guess I should be
    grateful.

    re: bandwith
    Memory is fading, but I do recall that the ISDN specs which define
    tomorrow's telephone network as well (integrated with data) have
    provision for a T? interface with 2*64kb plus some kb for signalling.
    
    ISDN which dates already for more than one decade found that a
    subscriber line should be 64kb = 8bit wide samples at 8k rate
    to be able to carry digitized voice with acceptable fidelity.
    Also normal twisted pair phone wiring was judged capable of
    handling 64kb.
    
    After one decade, I imagine that we could squeeze a lot more out
    of 64kb than just digitized speed. So I wonder whats keeping
    ISDN to progress into anyone's living room.
    
    Certainly not technology!
    /fred

    Okay, looks like either Ethernet or ISDN could be used for the network.
    I note that (from responses on- and off-line and from other notes)
    Digital seems to have commitment to both.
    
    How about terminals?  Does Digital make a terminal that has a high
    resolution screen, can hook up directly to one of these networks, can
    take peripherals and PC cards and goes for under $2000?  Maybe we could
    consider stripping down an existing terminal?  (This feedback's been
    great.  I feel like I'm learning something.)
    
    Steve

    If it takes PC peripherals and cards, then it *is* a PC.  It may not be
    running MSDOS, just one specialized data-shuffling program, but the
    hardware will be identical.
    
    If you expect to run DECwindows stuff on this, then you won't save
    anything on memory or CPU either.  An X-server needs *more* of these
    two resources than most complete PC applications!
    
    Not only that, if all this network and terminal whatsis get you is
    access to a DEC computer running the kind of software that you can run
    on a DEC machine, I can't see why anyone would want it.  The high
    personal-productivity software that everybody uses is written for the
    PC, not a big timeshared computer and DECwindows.
    
    I see the appropriate configuration as a plain old PC in the home, with
    ISDN to access the workplace computer and data.  64kb/s is *plenty* of
    bandwidth for applications that are appropriately designed for it.
    Most people have never seen just how fast 64kb/s really is.

    Well as long as you are at it you might as well check out the
    conference on High-Definition TV (3D::HDTV). Supposedly computer
    manufacturers such as DEC have an interest in HDTV due to the fact
    that the resolution of these newer TV's will begin to overlap that
    of some workstations. If the house of the 21st century is going to
    have a neworked video box it will probably be a HDTV for the
    monitor.
    
    It is not clear when/how HDTV will arrive in the US since
    
    A) a standard has not been chosen yet from the myriad of proposed
       standards (as far as I have heard; check out HDTV conference
       for details)
    
    B) The FCC mandates that whatever HDTV broadcast method is selected
       that the signal must be compatable with existing NTSC 525-line
       receivers (the TV standard in the US today). That will be no
       small feat! Most HDTV developers  would like to implement an entirely
       new signal format and not worry about NTSC compatibility, but
       FCC says no dice.
    
    
    Lee

    Re: .12
    
    Why isn't ISDN in every household?  
    
    There are a few of problems.  The first one is the tarrif for ISDN
    services.  Phone companies are regulated monopolies.  They have to 
    provide a rate for each type of service they provide.  The use of ISDN
    is still not that wide spread.  So, the phone companies have to apply
    to the PUC for a special rate to charge their ISDN customers.  Another
    problem is the "local loop."  This is the connection between your home
    or office and the phone switch downtown.   The interconnection between
    phone switches is all digital signals.  The connections in the local
    loop are, for the most part, still digital.  You have your own time
    machine in your telephone - as soon as you hit the central office you
    go from modern digital technology to analog horse-and-buggy
    communications - not much different that A.G. Bell's day.  There is a
    way to use these lines for ISDN communications, but you will need four
    wires to use it (you currently only use two wires of the four wire
    conduit that comes into your home).  Lastly, and probably the greatest
    hurdle, is that people don't like to change.  Tell them there is
    something new out there, no matter how great it will be, and you will
    find more resistance to change than you can stand.
    
    The sad thing is that all of the hardware, software, etc., is available
    off-the-shelf and ready to go.  The problems for getting something like
    Steve's idea off the ground is not technology - its mainly people and
    antiquated laws and regulations that have not been updated to keep up
    with technology. (For exapmle, cities used to grant franchises for
    transportation services like urban railroads. Granting these franchises
    meant large amounts of space being taken up in the community like
    placment of railroad tracks, etc.  Today, most franchises are just a
    piece of wire or fiber-optic cable - a foot or two of easement at the
    most - or just use the existing utility easement.  Laws to eastablish
    a franchise in the community haven't kept up with the technology such
    that the franchiser needs to jump through a lot of hoops to get the
    service installed).
    
    The basic gist:  ISDN is here, it works, and it could be well adapted
    to what Steve wants to do.  There are other network technologies out
    there that would work also.  The impediments to the implementation are
    laws and people, not technology.
    
    

>    If it takes PC peripherals and cards, then it *is* a PC.  It may not be
>    running MSDOS, just one specialized data-shuffling program, but the
>    hardware will be identical.

Yeah, if it's PC cards and peripherals you're right.  Sounds like a better
alternative might be to generate cards just for this new box or create special
interfaces to favorite PC cards.  Customized cards could be designed to 
make the most of the network-configured box.  Many of the PC cards in existance
today would become redundant.  That is, there would be little or no need for
math accelerators, memory enhancers and so forth.

>    If you expect to run DECwindows stuff on this, then you won't save
>    anything on memory or CPU either.  An X-server needs *more* of these
>    two resources than most complete PC applications!

Ah, but that's where this differs.  You might call up DECwindows but this box
wouldn't know it.  It will not be an X-server.  What it will be doing is 
interfacing with another machine that might have VMS and is allowing your 
terminal to operate as a remote terminal.  This is not unlike what is already 
done with my VT240 at home.  It doesn't run VMS, but as a remote terminal I 
can access all VMS functions.  I can host over to an ULTRIX machine and access 
all ULTRIX functions.  But, I'm not running ULTRIX on my terminal.  The VT240 
is basically a cell terminal that allows the network access to pixesl too.  
And, I can (supposedly) add a printer to the VT240.  The new terminal designed 
for the network would do the same functions, but would allow more pixel 
control and more interfacing to peripherals.  (BTW, this new terminal would 
have all network support already built in.  No need to add a modem to connect 
to the network.)

The peripherals can be standard without requiring the box to be a PC.  It 
could have SCSI, RS-232, MIDI and other ports on it.  I expect that the 
need for a disk drive would be minimized since most accesses to mass storage can
be done over the network.  The need for lots of RAM can be minimized since
there will be access over the network that is sufficiently fast for home
applications.  In fact, RAM might be segmented and optimized for FIFO-type I/O 
operations and screen support.  The need for a powerful general-purpose CPU is 
minimized since big number crunching programs can be done on the big remote 
machines.  In fact, this box might not have a CPU per se, but just a bunch of 
little processors to interface with the network support logic.  It could be 
that each card added has its own processor designed to interface with the 
communications electronics and not much else.  The box itself would not run 
programs like a PC would and would itself provide little more than 
communications prompts, much like my VT240 does now.  

The big money on the box would not be spent on mass storage, a fast
general-purpose CPU, memory or a big power supply, all critical components in a
standard PC.  Instead, it would be spent on a high-res screen, communications 
stuff and ports (for keyboard, mouse, SCSI, RS-232, MIDI and so forth).  I 
expect the basic box could cost significantly less than a cheap PC and would 
give the consumer access to tremendous power at low cost.  And, the big remote 
machines you hook up to do not need to be DEC machines.  They can be PCs or 
whatever.  The big things I see DEC providing are the communications innards, 
network and other support.  These are areas that we are supposed to be good at 
and areas where only a big company with lots of pull and a clear vision can 
set standards.

This is how the PC standard got started.  Maybe this is how a home terminal 
standard can get going.  We can call it the HT standard (or DECht), no?
I suspect that we already have the VT technology and just need to enhance it
and to define the whole vision.


Steve

    I'm lost.  What do I get by hooking up to something like Easynet?
    
    Granted 64Kb transmission speeds would ocassionally be nice, but
    why would I need it more that once in a while?  To run X?????????
    
    For about $1500 I can get a 386 pased PC with color monitor, 40MB
    disk drive, modem, 1-2 meg of memory, and a very nice graphics
    interface.  Or I can buy a 6-10 lb portable and plug the monitor
    and keyboard in when I want to use it in the office.  
    
    The PC/Cellular/Portable Age is walking and driving around, who's
    worried about the home? 
    
    I have spreadsheets, word processing, graphics composition, games,
    public Database and CD-ROM access, though processors, compilers,
    etc. etc. that make just about anything on VMS look stone-age.
    They are cheap too.
    
    I can even plug a FAX and scanner into the damn thing.
    
    Given 64Kb transmissions speeds the LAN software avaialable today
    (with is quite client/server oriented) will make it possible to
    use the PC in a widely dispersed group.
    
    What is the Digital added value here?
    

    At the risk of being blunt, I have to say that this notion of some
    "dumb" network terminal sold into homes is off the track.
    
    People want something that can work on its own, without getting locked
    into some costly service for life: currently, a PC.  If the PC can then
    be connected to some network service as an OPTION, then you may have
    a chance.
    
    We've lost control of the desktop in large companies because of the old
    "buy our VTxxx instead of a PC" strategy.  We'll never succeed with the
    same strategy in the home market.  If you insist on following on the
    "dumb" terminal concept, you'll have to make it SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper
    than a cheap PC; say the $100-$200 range.  At Digital, we barely know
    how to sell DOCUMENTATION in that price range, let alone HARDWARE...
    
    The home budget is a tight budget.  If a PC exists, it had better be
    "upgradable" to do what you want without throwing away the customer's
    investment in software, etc.  Why should a home PC user toss their
    investment to get a network when there are already networks available?
    I doubt we could currently offer the home user anything significantly
    different and desirable enough to the home user to cause even a small
    percentage to sacrifice PC independence for "dumb" network access (for
    a hefty fee, of course).
    
    Now, if you want to talk about high speed networks, talk about a PC
    adapter card of some sort, some fancy software, and some neat options.
    
    But please don't talk about "dumb" terminals.  It will never fly...
    
    IM(not particularly)HO
    
    -- Russ

>    I'm lost.  What do I get by hooking up to something like Easynet?

You get access to other computers.

>    Granted 64Kb transmission speeds would ocassionally be nice, but
>    why would I need it more that once in a while?  To run X?????????

You need high bandwidth to get access to high-resolution graphics.  And, if
you already have that bandwidth, you can get reasonable access to extensive 
remote memory and computes.

>    For about $1500 I can get a 386 pased PC with color monitor, 40MB
>    disk drive, modem, 1-2 meg of memory, and a very nice graphics
>    interface.  Or I can buy a 6-10 lb portable and plug the monitor
>    and keyboard in when I want to use it in the office.  

Fine.  But, that kind of money doesn't even come close to what it would cost 
for me to, for example, continue doing Motif interface development when I go 
home.  The VT240 won't cut it.  I need to either go back to work or bring home 
a $15K+ workstation, both of which I have done at times.  What if I want to 
bring up GED and continue doing schematic entry.  Do it on a $1500 PC?  No way.
But, I would be able to do this on an HT and it might even cost less.

>    The PC/Cellular/Portable Age is walking and driving around, who's
>    worried about the home? 

Probably the folks want to sell to people that work with expensive computers 
at work, come home and can't continue to work on inferior equipment.  Or, 
maybe folks who think about bosses of people who would put in more time at 
home if they had access to equipment that was virtually as good as what they 
have at work.

>    I have spreadsheets, word processing, graphics composition, games,
>    public Database and CD-ROM access, though processors, compilers,
>    etc. etc. that make just about anything on VMS look stone-age.
>    They are cheap too.

I do, too.  But, for me it's all *free* because I work for Digital.  Not only 
that, all hardware support for the machines at work are maintained at no 
expense on my part.  I haven't had to spend a penny on disk drives, floppy
disks, machine repair, backups or whatever.  I've been able to do just about
anything I need to with my lowly VT240 and modem.  But, I could do more with a
fast network, high resolution screen and more ports on my terminal.

>    I can even plug a FAX and scanner into the damn thing.

Wish I could do that with my VT240.  With an HT a scanner could plug into a
port.

>    Given 64Kb transmissions speeds the LAN software avaialable today
>    (with is quite client/server oriented) will make it possible to
>    use the PC in a widely dispersed group.

No problem.  But, an HT with a fast network might allow you to do the same 
thing at a fraction of the cost and with better access.

>    What is the Digital added value here?

Digital is big enough and knowledgable enough in networking computers that it 
could push to establish cheap, fast networks all over the country, provide an 
HT hardware cheaper and better than most anyone else could (in similar 
fashion as was done with the VT320 which I helped work on) and provide support 
in setting and applying standards for all aspects of using home terminals.
We could apply our knowledge to link all sizes and makes of computers while
dramatically increasing the access that everyone has to computing power.
Kind of hits close to what made the company big in the first place.

I've heard it said before that the network IS the system.  If we do networks
as well as we think we do, WE should be able to capitalize on this idea by
being the driving force in easy access for everyone to fast networks.  There is
no reason why folks should have to buy a relatively expensive PC to get access 
to UNIX, VMS or whatever if we are successful in this.  

Steve

        
>    People want something that can work on its own, without getting locked
>    into some costly service for life: currently, a PC.  If the PC can then
>    be connected to some network service as an OPTION, then you may have
>    a chance.

I don't think that "costly service for life" is a factor if people begin to
view having a home terminal as a commodity.  Other commodities could also have
fallen to this argument.  For example, what can you do with a phone that's
not hooked up?

>    We've lost control of the desktop in large companies because of the old
>    "buy our VTxxx instead of a PC" strategy.  We'll never succeed with the
>    same strategy in the home market.  ...

I think that the home market is becoming linked to the office market.  As long 
as folks are willing to buy the same PC at home that they have at work, then I 
agree that a dumb terminal would be a bad idea.  But, let's look at why folks 
bought dumb terminals a long time ago.  I think it was because they couldn't 
afford to put a full-fledged system on/under/beside everyones' desks.  Dumb 
terminals sold like hotcakes when folks could have access to computing power 
at their desks.

The industry is headed toward cheap PCs.  No question.  BUT, it is also heading
toward EXPENSIVE workstations at the office, requiring much more memory and
computes than mere mortals can afford.  Sure, we can upgrade our PCs, but
that IS expensive.  Such upgrading has led some folks to comment to me that
their PCs are black holes for them to throw money into.  How long will people 
be able to match at home the type of computing power they have at their offices?

I've had my VT240 for about 4 years.  The machines I work on tend to get
upgraded about every year or so.  Hasn't cost me a cent and the box has pretty
well "kept up" with increases in memory and computes.

I think we blew it in the PC biz.  But, I also think that there will come a
point where having access to computing power at home will be a commodity.
And, people won't be satisfied with having to duplicate computing resources
at work and at home as they are now.  The solution is to have a system at
home that doesn't become obsolete as soon as the hardware at work is upgraded.
I think the time of the dumb terminal will come back if you can give the home
user all the power that they have at work (or wherever) at a tiny fraction of 
the cost.  This assumes that having access to memory and computes becomes a 
commodity, of course.

>    But please don't talk about "dumb" terminals.  It will never fly...

I don't accept that dumb terminals are dead.  My phone is a dumb terminal.
My TV is a dumb terminal.  It's not the phone or the TV that's of value.  
It's the network.


Steve

    Steve,
    
    	The era of the dumb terminal is dead...  Your VT240 is not a dumb
    	terminal anymore than a telephone which can perform numerous local
    	functions like storing the last number dialed, or speed dialing
    	previously stored numbers is a dumb telephone.
    
    	The memory required, the local processor to refresh and restore
    	the screen, to handle multiple sessions, and peripherrals is a
    	CPU, albeit not a complicated one.
    
    	The idea that I should have to go back to some central system to
    	execute every instruction and make use of every feature will not
    	sell.  It may be true that I can not use my phone unless the net
    	work is available, but then what would I be doing with it if it
    	were not contacting someone out there.  My television does not
    	depend on the cable company or the TV stations as I can hook it
    	up to a VCR and watch films previously recorded whether I had
    	access to that network or not.
    
    	The cost of the simply CPU is an insignificant portion of the PC.
    	Its the memory, high resolution monitor, and processors to allow
    	access to printers, scanners, keyboards, etc... that quickly raise
    	the price.
    
    	Althought I believe that there is significant advantage to having
    	the PC connected to a network, increasing its access to programs,
    	disk storage, exotic peripherrals, etc...  I do not believe that
    	requiring this access for all activity is a logically strategy.
    	Afterall if you can connect the dumb terminal to the network,
    	why not connect the dumb printer, the dumb scanner, the dumb xyz
    	device and eliminate the need to have ports on your HT.
    
    	DEC already builds VT1200 and VT1300 which are patterned on idea
    	of the HT.  These X-Window devices require significant memory
    	are quite expensive and means someone has to provide a VAX and
    	a local network for you to do anything.
    
    	If you have worked with people who have successfully incorporated
    	PCs into their business life, you would find that they do not try
    	to replicate their work environment, but rather to enhance the
    	environment away from the office.  The salesman who takes an order
    	using a lap top and does not have to re-enter it when he arrives
    	at the office.  The insurance salesman who has rate tables and
    	life payment options on his portable so he can calculate charges
    	while meeting with the customer.
    
    	A lot of decision support and spread sheet software is being used
    	away from the office.  If you attempt to size the market for people
    	who want to do the same thing from home as they can do from the of-
    	fice you will find too small a market to justify investing in the
    	development of the high resolution work station which is just a
    	terminal.  Now there is a market for diskless work stations, and
    	we already have products that connect to a network to satisfy this
    	market.  Many people have tried to develop devices which could use
    	the TV as a monitor, thereby reducing a major cost component but
    	none have been sucessful as high resolution terminals.  The game
    	manufacturers have been successful at delivering graphics using
    	8 bit and 16 bit CPUs.  The use of RISC technology has driven us
    	and our competitors to build work stations with numerous specialized
    	processors and co-processors but we all seem to opt for non-TV
    	monitors which have built in memory and signal processors of their
    	own.  If the home user, has to buy an expensive monitor and
    	buy time sharing on a system, and pay an access charge to get
    	on the network, and, and, and...  The market won't grow rapidly.
    
    	Look at the PC networks and bulletin boards.  They have grown but
    	every prediction of electronic shopping, banking, news dissemmena-
    	tion, etc... which relies on general interest has not lived up to
    	its supposed potential.  The excuses today include it is too costly
    	for the hardware to access the network, the services are difficult
    	to use, I don't like computers etc....  These would not change for
    	your vision of the HT device.
    
    	The value of the network as a storage mechanism, as a means to
    	share cost of expensive devices, as a means to communicate to
    	other individuals can not be underestimated.  Having the network
    	and lowering the cost for getting on the network are laudable ob-
    	jectives.  Focusing on doing so with a dumb terminal may or may
    	no be worth while especially when Digital is not a low cost
    	provider of this kind of device.
    
    	Developing a device to connect simple devices to a network, like
    	a TV, a keyboard, a printer, etc...  Digital is doing a lot of
    	that with terminal servers etc...  The fact that we aren't building
    	these devices at a low cost or for the home market is based on
    	our account focused strategy.  Noone has been chartered to make
    	mom and pop successful by getting them on the network.
    
    	As a company we are going thru a major change, we need to entertain
    	all points of view and evaluate all opportunities.  You maybe right
    	that a market exists and that its worth pursuing, but I have a hard
    	time seeing Digital in that market place when I can buy PCs for
    	half the cost of some of DEC's terminals.
    
    

    Wait a minute.  If my VT240 is not a dumb terminal, then why are we
    calling a home terminal a dumb terminal?
    
    Before we continue, perhaps someone should offer a definition for a
    dumb terminal.  To this point, I have been assuming something along the
    lines that a dumb terminal is a fixture at the end of a communications
    link that, of itself, does not perform anything really useful.  By
    that, TVs, radios, telephones, FAX machines, VT240s and home terminals
    sit in the same set.  PCs do not since they are oriented towards
    performing tasks without need of a communications link to a network.
    
    Steve 

	The price ranges that have been talked about so far are simply too 
    high.  To get into the home market you are going to have to deliver a lot
    of function at very low cost.  You'll note that all this stuff does 
    something without being connected to a network.  In other words, this stuff
    will drive network only products off the market.  Some points on the 
    curve --

Cheap game machine + TV (Nintendo)
    100$+TV
	Medium Resolution Games with potential for network interface.

Good game machine + TV (Sega, Genisis)
    250$+TV
	Good Resolution Games with CD optional & potential for network.

Cheap Home Computer + TV (C64, C128?)
    400$+TV
	Medium Resolution Games, dialup option, home productivity software.

Home Computer + TV (A500)
    600$+TV
	Good Resolution Games, dialup option, home productivity software.
	real software development possible but painful.

Home Computer + Monitor (A500)
    <1000$
	Very good games, dialup option, home productivity software.  Real
	software development possible but still painfully limited.

Home Workstation (PCs, A2xxx)
    <2000$
	Same as above with more memory and local storage.  Acceptable software
	development environment.

Cheap Professional Workstation (numerous)
    3000-4000$
	Profesional quality.

	If we can't get a minimum complete home system out for under 1K$, we 
    should give this market segment a pass.  In order to get our prices that 
    low we are going to have to get our administrative costs WAY down.

    Singapore, a pretty high tech little country, has a system
    called Teleview.  Input is from a keyboard, over a modem, to a
    computer.  Price is cheap and speed isn't too critical.  Output is via
    TV signals, through a decoder box, to your TV.  The system can do lots
    of info-base type stuff, and can also allow you to connect to other
    computers.  Their system is cheap, there is access to lots of
    information, the resolution is okay, and the performance appears to be
    acceptable.  One can also dial into the system via a conventional modem
    and terminal/PC.  Sometimes it is better to do something and improve it
    later, than to talk about perfection and not do anything.
    
    joel

    I like that idea.  Right now, my VT240 would be acceptable if I could
    use a mouse and do some window graphics rather than character cell.
    That would allow me to do Motif development from home.  Doesn't have to
    be state of the art in resolution.  I could use a regular TV if I had
    to.  But, I'd have to have higher bandwidth because pixel transfers to
    a VT240 are too slow, probably even at 9.6 kbs.
    
    Steve

    >I told him
    >how little I knew about PCs. He also knew that I had an extensive
    >software engineering/management background. His comment was something
    >along the lines of:
    >
    >  Dave, now I understand why Digital has been doing so badly lately.
    >  If you guys don't know anything about PCs you must be totally out of
    >  touch with the marketplace.
    
    I'm almost beside myself with this passage.
    
    I hope you told this person that simply because Dave Garrod knows
    nothing about PCs that it doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of us know
    nothing about PCs.

    I hope none of the hard-working folks in PCSG see your comments, they
    might take issue with you.
    
    Bob
    

    Re .-1
    
    You are missing the point. Firstly the comment was made by him slightly
    tongue in cheek, secondly it had the desired effect it made me think.
    
    Like it or not the majority of people in DEC do not have a PC on their
    desk. Yes I know about PCSG, engineers in my group are working
    closely with that group.
    
    The point is that the majority of engineers, myself included, are not
    PCcentric. I think this is changing but only slowly. Remember this
    comment came from someone who is working in a highly profitable PC
    software company and from the outside he sees that DEC is a much less
    profitable company. He then proceeds to link that fact with the fact that
    the engineer he knows from that company is asking him some REALLY basic
    PC questions who clearly and admittedly didn't know anything about the use
    of PCs (by the way I'm doing better now, I read quite a lot of the DOS
    manual; certainly a lot smaller than the VMS docset!)
    
    I entered my note in here to be read by others in VMS, Ultrix,
    Networking etc engineering. Maybe it'll prompt a few more people to
    learn about the desktop device that everybody besides those in Digital
    uses.
    
    Dave

    Slight tangent, but I have read a lot of discussion about the future of
    DOS.  Actually, that may be an oxymoron.  There are basically three
    operating systems that are expected to dominate the market within the
    next five years for PCs.  They have been listed as IBMs OS2, some
    version of Unix and Apple's OS for Macs (name escapes me).  The problem 
    is that migrating to one of these systems is expensive.  This is one of 
    the things that has prompted my suggesting that maybe we need to look at 
    how to make it cheap for home users to get access to such systems.
    The solution resembles what was successfully done in the past when
    users couldn't get good access to computing power.   
    
    I've already heard complaints of how slow a windowing system can become 
    on a Mac or PC.   Users may start looking at alternatives to having to
    buy expensive systems capable of running these operating systems.
    
    Steve

    We don't have a "Character Cell Terminal/Timesharing Group" (CCTTG).

    CCTT is the dominant style of computing at Digital.

    Personal Computers are the dominant style of computing elsewhere.

    When VAX 780's were replaced at Digital there were replaced with
    something cheaper and maybe faster, but essentially it was not a
    functional replacement.
    
    When VAX 780's were replaced at many customer sites, the VT100's were
    replaced as well and personal computers installed.

    When manual systems were replaced in the 70's and early 80's, they were
    replaced with the products of the CCTT. 

    The root of many problems Digital faces is that it sales and sales
    support people are regarded by customers as out of step with the 90's
    or worse hostile to trends in computing that benefit the customer.

    Personal computers are rat-holed at Digital.  That's probably a good
    survival tactic for PCSG in the internal bureaucratic guerrilla wars,
    but personal computers ought to be as mainstream within Digital as
    they are at real customers.
                           

    
    Dave:
    
    Not every engineer at Digital needs to be PC literate.  We certainly
    need a great deal more PC talent in the Sales, Sales Support, and
    delivery areas, but I see no need for a sudden sweep of PC indoc. for
    people who are busy developing products not directly impacting the PC
    market.
    
    Why in the world do we need PCs on every desk?  What do you consider
    every desk and who is going to pay for this mess?
    
    

I have been requested to do a talk at the Cambridge Research Labs regarding
the technology I originally proposed in the Computer Village papers.  Here
is a copy of the Abstract:


                      Wednesday, 10 April, at 2 PM

			Workstations for the Home:

			 The Future of Computing
				- or - 
		     An Oxymoron for the 21st Century?


As technology continues to advance the differences between workstations and
personal computers are diminishing.  The complexity of Personal Computers is
increasing while the price of workstations is decreasing.  The same hardware
can be identified as a Workstation or Personal Computer depending upon the
Operating system.  Ease of use, system management, service capabilities and
functionality will become more important than performance and cost as these 
two markets become one.

The definitions of home and office are slowly blurring.  Today, it is common 
practice for information professionals to work at home either full or part
time.  A whole new technology, Telecommuting- the ability to work from home
using a computer and modem, continues to make inroads in our society.  This
mode of work will increase as higher telecommunication speeds, increased home
computer performance, and advanced services become available.  The use of
high-bandwidth communication to connect high performance computers in the home
can create a competitive edge in the global market.

Today, pilot projects of limited scope can be developed to explore
opportunities and possible services before high-speed connections are a
commonplace. Experiments in this field can reflect the communications bandwidth
capacity of five to fifteen years from now, but implemented using current
technologies. These experiments can be based upon existing telecommunications,
Cable Television, or LAN technologies.  The task of these projects is to define
requirements, tools and services for tomorrow using today's technology.  Future
industries will provide advanced services over High-speed connections between
customer and vendor based upon client-server technology.  The goal would be to
develop technology to provide remote services for small businesses,
telecommuters and other professionals who work with advanced computer systems
in the home tomorrow, or an isolated office today.

	 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
DIRECTIONS to:	Digital Equipment Corporation
==========      CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH LAB
		One Kendall Square, Building 700
		Cambridge, Massachusetts  02139
		Telephone:  (617) 621-6600
		DTN:  259-6600
 
 
Please be warned that THE One Kendall Square complex is NOT in Kendall
Square proper.  One Kendall Square is a cluster of buildings located on
the NORTH side of Technology Square at the JUNCTION of Hampshire Street and
Broadway.
 
WALKING Directions FROM   Binney Street
=======================================
  1.  	Cross back over Binney Street.  Use walkway between Bank
 	of New England [LEFT] and Building 1400 [RIGHT] into  One
	Kendall Square complex.  Enter Building 700 on your RIGHT.
  2.	Walk through the Atrium to elevators and go up to 2nd floor.  
	[CRL is UP TO your RIGHT as you ENTER  atrium]
  
WALKING directions FROM   Hampshire Street
==========================================
  1.  	Walk through MAIN courtyard of One Kendall Square, bear RIGHT up
	a set of stairs and around  Building 200.  A clothing store is
on            	your immediate LEFT.
  2.  	Enter  doorway to  LEFT of Quantum Books, go STRAIGHT down  
	hall through another set of doors and into the five-story atrium, 
	[lobby of Building 700].
  3.  	FOLLOW "Binney Street" step [2] above.
 
WALKING directions FROM   MBTA (Subway stop)
============================================
   1.  	Take the Red Line to  Kendall Square Stop (MIT).
   2.	At street level, you will see the MIT Coop.
   3.  	Facing the Coop, turn LEFT and walk to end of block. 
   4.	Turn RIGHT (at Legal Seafoods).  Walk one block and turn LEFT onto
	Broadway (toward Cambridge, not Boston).	
   5.	Walk down Broadway.  Cross  railroad tracks.  Walk underneath 
	Draper Lab's pedestrian bridge. 
   6.	When  street splits, bear RIGHT onto Hampshire Street and into  
	One Kendall Square Complex.  
   7.	FOLLOW "Hampshire Street" directions.
 
WALKING directions FROM   Kendall Square Mariott  
================================================
   1.	Exit hotel onto Broadway and cross  street.
   2.   Walk down Broadway (towards Cambridge, not Boston).  Cross railroad 
	tracks.  Walk underneath Draper Lab's pedestrian bridge.  
   3.	When street splits, bear RIGHT onto Hampshire Street and walk into 
 	One Kendall Square Complex.
   4.	FOLLOW "Hampshire Street" directions.
 

Directions by car from   ROUTE 2
================================
   1.  	Follow Route 2 to Fresh Pond Parkway, Fresh Pond Parkway south to
	Memorial Drive, and Memorial Drive to the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
   2.	FOLLOW step [3] of  "Directions from MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE".
 
 
Directions by car from the MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE
=================================================
 
 If you are coming from the WEST on   MASS PIKE
 ==============================================
   1a.  Exit the Mass Pike at Exit 18,  Allston-Cambridge (LEFT exit)
 	and take RIGHT fork to Cambridge.   FOLLOW step [2] below.
 
 If you are coming from the EAST on   MASS PIKE
 ==============================================
   1b.  Exit the Mass Pike at Exit 20,  Allston-Cambridge , and 
        take  RIGHT fork to Cambridge.
  
   2. 	Go straight, over  bridge, and TURN RIGHT (immediately) at 
        traffic light at FAR side of the bridge, onto Memorial Drive.
   3.	Stay in LEFT lane, and follow Memorial Drive (taking  overpass) 
        to  first traffic light (JUST after the Hyatt Regency Hotel).
   4.   Turn LEFT at that light.
   5. 	At  end of  block (a T-end), turn RIGHT onto Vassar Street.
   6.	Follow Vassar Street.  At  first light, cross Massachusetts Avenue. 
	At second light cross Main Street, bearing LEFT.  The third light
	is one block later.
   7. 	At  third light, turn LEFT onto Broadway. 
   8. 	Proceed across  railroad tracks. 
   9.   At  fork of Broadway and Hampshire, stay to RIGHT.  At first light 
  	take a RIGHT onto Cardinal Mederios.  Take  first
 	RIGHT onto Binney Street.  
   10.	PARKING - Binney Street Garage
 
Directions by car from   ROUTE 3
================================
   1.	Take Route 3 to Route 128 South to Route 2 East.  FOLLOW
	ROUTE 2 directions .
 
Alternate directions by car from   ROUTE 3
==========================================
   1.   Take Route 3 to Route 128 North to I-93 South.
   2.	Get off I-93 at  Sullivan Square exit.  Follow  signs
	to Boston.  This entails a sort of roller coaster getting off
	and on about three ramps.
   3.   Keep following  "Boston" signs until you see Bunker Hill
	Community College on your RIGHT and first sign for Cambridge.
	Follow sign (i.e., turn RIGHT).  This road becomes Commercial
	Avenue in Cambridge within a block.
   4.	Follow Commercial until it runs into Memorial Drive at a lift
	bridge.  This is THE first RIGHT that is NOT at a traffic signal.
	Take  RIGHT, which puts you onto Broadway.
   5.   Follow Broadway for three traffic lights and take  RIGHT fork
	immediately past train tracks.	
   6.   Please refer to "Directions from MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE", FOLLOW
	STEP [8]
 
Directions by car from   LOGAN AIRPORT
======================================
   1.	Follow  street signs to  Mass Pike, and FOLLOW the 
	MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE directions. 
 
Alternate directions from   LOGAN AIRPORT
=========================================
   1.  	Take Sumner Tunnel into Boston.  Stay in  LEFT lane.
   2.	As you exit tunnel, keep LEFT and go up  entrance ramp
	to  Central Artery.
   3.	Get into  RIGHT lane and take 2nd exit to Storrow Drive.
   4.   Get into  LEFT lane and stay LEFT.  (This all happens quite fast!)
   5.	Go through a short tunnel, take  LEFT exit ( sign says
        Government Center).
   6.	After  exit take an immediate RIGHT onto  Longfellow Bridge.
   7.	Come straight off  bridge and down Broadway (through Kendall 
	Square proper).
   8.   FOLLOW step [7] of  "Directions from MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE".

 
 
THE BINNEY STREET PARKING GARAGE
================================
 
	PLEASE NOTE: If  Parking Ticket is lost you will pay $14.  If your
        ticket is not STAMPED by Digital 0-1 hrs will cost $2.00. So don't
        forget to bring it with you!!
 
 
				RATES:  1 hour free with stamp by CRL
					1-2 hrs $2.00; $1.00 for each 
					additional hr; $7.00 max.
				HOURS:  6:00 a.m.-12:00 Midnight; 
 
 
CROSS BACK over Binney Street.  Use  walkway between  Bank
 	of New England [LEFT] and Building 1400 [RIGHT] into  One
	Kendall Square complex.  Enter Building 700 on your RIGHT.
WALK THROUGH  Atrium to  elevators and go up to 2nd floor.  
	[CRL is up to your RIGHT as you enter  atrium]

    >                 <<< Note 1406.11 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>
    >Once again I'm dumfounded by our arrogance
    >(ignorance).  Sat in a PC Integration conference a few months back
    >where in the presentor claimed we are the only company in the F-500
    >which does not have a PC on every desk!!  I believe it.
    
    I worked for a Fortune FIVE company, and have been onsite
    with a dozen or so F-100 companies in the last two years.  They are
    nowhere near a PC on every desk.  You (or the presentor) couldn't
    be exaggerating could you?
    
    >I belonged to a customer forum the last few years.  A customer told
    >us that they not only have PC's on every desk, but that they are
    >replaced as often as twice a year....as soon as more power or
    >functionality is available.  They don't have to order them.  They
    >are considered as commodities.
    
    And I'm sure that it is absolutely necessary for every desk to be
    upgraded that often ... just as everyone using 386/486 absolutely needs
    the horsepower and uses it.  (Actually I more often hear from customers
    who put PCs on every desk that it is an amazing waste of resource in
    many cases...)  Are you sure you're not exaggerating here?
    
        
    
    
    

General Comments:

The underlying concepts in this note have been debated for over a year and a 
half.  There is one big issue of providing a bi-directional link over Cable TV.
The Analog interface is very expensive.  The total cost for a modem is currently
$10k.  Cost is also an issue with ISDN.  The cost for a single ISDN phone is
$1.5k.  ISDN also has a problem that the only service provided which is not 
available over POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) today is the 64Kbps.  Under 
POTS you can have access to leased lines for 56Kbps.  The phone service that may
provide LAN-speed bandwidth is T1, or 1.5 Mbps.  This service is available
today on a limited basis, and it is *very* expensive.

 >>     ... now I understand why Digital has been doing so badly lately.
 >>     If you guys don't know anything about PCs you must be totally out of
 >>     touch with the marketplace.

Considering that much of this debate is about replacing hardware with new
hardware, I consider this a case in point.  The bottom line is:  There are over
*40 Million* PCs out there.  75% of all desktops have PCs, 13% have 
workstations and 12% have terminals.  Secondly,
38% of all homes have some PC today.  That is also probably the lion's share of
all computer literate homes as well.  Whatever we do in this market (which I
support and advocate whenever possible!) we need to take into account
this phenominal marketbase.

As another obvious point.  Digital is not in the PC business (aside from the 
"me-too", dandy/Tandy products), we don't want to compete in this low margin
commodity market, and it is questionable that we could develop a product 
which could compete in price and VOLUME that the industry and marketplace
would take seriously.   The PC market is huge!  Digital does not sell products 
through the retail market.  It's not an issue of technology or manufacturing to
get Lechmere, Sears, or whatever to carry a Digital product line, but is is a
hell of an issue.

Note 1406.3 RICKS::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN
>>    Peripherals for this type of thing might include dumb laser printers
>>    that can be controlled over the network, adapters that can allow
>>    standard I/O boards to be easily connected, software that can allow a
 >>   user to emulate responses from home as though at the desk at work and
 >>   so forth.  There could be a market for personal use of big machines on
 >>   the network.  There could be a market for account backups over the
>>    network.  That kind of thing.  

Damn right!  But why not provide these services to PCs/etc. which are already
out there.  It is cheaper to develop an adapter board and software which
connect currently isolated PCs to a global, seamless network.  Very little 
software would run locally.  3rd party information sources could be X-clients 
that are available over the network.  Currently the greatest obsticle is cost.
We should focus on any way possible to reduce the costs.

>>       Developing and supporting a really cheap workstation with really
>>           cheap peripherals that is designed with the network.

It would be a lot cheaper to develop an adapter/interface for existing PCs than
designing and selling our own box.  Besides, it gives us an opportinity to
piggyback the 38% marketshare of PCs in the home.  I've heard that Microsoft
Windows require a 386 and 2-4Meg to run at a reasonable speed.  If this becomes
the defacto machine, then we can run an X server.  (Of course, we
could also run SCO Unix with that configuration...)

 Note 1406.14   KOBAL::DICKSON 
    
>>    I see the appropriate configuration as a plain old PC in the home, with
>>    ISDN to access the workplace computer and data.  64kb/s is *plenty* of
>>    bandwidth for applications that are appropriately designed for it.
>>    Most people have never seen just how fast 64kb/s really is.

If 64Kbps was fast enough to support computer networks, then ISDN PBXes
would be replacing LANs in the marketplace today.  As computer systems are
becoming more robust, data is becoming more complex.  Raw text editing is
becoming replaced with WYSIWYG.  Guess what happens at 64Kbps when you
start shipping Postscript files around!

Note 1406.16   SFCPMO::KING     
>>    The sad thing is that all of the hardware, software, etc., is available
>>    off-the-shelf and ready to go.  

It's available off the shelf today, but one vendor is still having problems
talking to another vendor's equipment.
    
    The basic gist:  ISDN is here, it works, and it could be well adapted
    to what Steve wants to do.  There are other network technologies out
    there that would work also.  The impediments to the implementation are
    laws and people, not technology.

The impediments are more complex.  POTS provide almost identical service
to ISDN, except for data service. (ISDN:  Innovation Subscribers Don't Need)
The cost for ISDN is *very* prohibitive.  The price will continue to drop 
over the next five years.

CUSPID::MCCABE 

    I'm lost.  What do I get by hooking up to something like Easynet?
       
    What is the Digital added value here?

Note 1406.19    NEWVAX::PAVLICEK "Zot, the Ethical Hacker" 

>>    The home budget is a tight budget.  If a PC exists, it had better be
>>    "upgradable" to do what you want without throwing away the customer's
>>    investment in software, etc.  Why should a home PC user toss their
>>    investment to get a network when there are already networks available?
>>    I doubt we could currently offer the home user anything significantly
>>    different and desirable enough to the home user to cause even a small
 >>   percentage to sacrifice PC independence for "dumb" network access (for
>>    a hefty fee, of course).
    
This should be the target. We can't compete against the PC market, but we can
take advantage of the PC market size.  We want to provide services to all the
PC/clients out there, and charge for those services.  If you can't beat them, 
join them.

Note 1406.21  RICKS::SHERMAN 

>> I don't think that "costly service for life" is a factor if people begin to
>>  view having a home terminal as a commodity.  Other commodities could also 
>>  have
>> fallen to this argument.  For example, what can you do with a phone that's
>> not hooked up?

You've missed the point.  People who invest $500-$3000 on a PC don't want
to throw out the hardware just to buy a new box.  PCs are a long-term
investment like a television, stereo, VCR, etc.


>>  Such upgrading has led some folks to comment to me that
>> their PCs are black holes for them to throw money into.  How long will people
>> be able to match at home the type of computing power they have at their
offices?

If people have seamless access to a global network of data from their office
and their home, then why should they travel to work?  Why not telecommute and
work at home?  If it is cheaper to support an office-class machine in people's 
home than supporting the same machine and provide office space for the
employee, then the home machine becomes the "home office" machine.

>> >    But please don't talk about "dumb" terminals.  It will never fly...

>> I don't accept that dumb terminals are dead.  My phone is a dumb terminal.
>> My TV is a dumb terminal.  It's not the phone or the TV that's of value.  
>> It's the network.

Remember that a "smart" PC  can emulate a "dumb" terminal.  In fact, terminal
emulation is very common today.  What we need to do is develop a higher level
protocol based upon client-server technology which expects a reasonable degree 
of intelligence on both ends, and expects a greater bandwidth.

Note 1406.24   VMSNET::WOODBURY

Cheap game machine + TV (Nintendo)      100$+TV
 
Good game machine + TV (Sega, Genisis)   250$+TV

Cheap Home Computer + TV (C64, C128?)     400$+TV

Home Computer + TV (A500)    600$+TV

Home Computer + Monitor (A500 [PS/1, MacClassic])    <1000$

Home Workstation (PCs, A2xxx)    <2000$

Cheap Professional Workstation (numerous)    3000-4000$

>>  In order to get our prices that 
>>    low we are going to have to get our administrative costs WAY down.

Speaking about adminstrative costs, when we start to talk about advanced,
complex systems in people's homes, who is going to be the system manager....the 
consumer?  That's like the automobile industry telling us we have to do our
own mechanic work.

What is needed is support for a LAN-speed connection to an isolated machine
It can be a PC, workstation, or whatever.  The network interface is the same
in all accounts, and WE SHOULDN'T CARE what type of box we're talking
to.  That is the ultimate network for open systems, folks!

I have written a few papers on issue relavent to this talk.  Fell free to
contact me for copies.  Or check out VTX DLNCatalog for a report I wrote 
last June.

Should I make it a point that I wrote this reply on my 8-year old Mac Plus at
home by downloading the entire note, writing my replies by cutting and pasting
into a separate window, and then uploading the result when I was done?  Naw...

Dave

    Dave,
    
    I agree with most of what you are saying.  A nit is that I don't
    think and don't mean to assert that PCs should be excluded and that 
    adaption should not be pursued. I won't contest that at all.  I see no 
    problem with allowing a PC to be hooked up to a home terminal through a 
    port.  If the home terminal is cheap enough, a PC user might think of it 
    and use it as yet another peripheral for the PC.
    
    Slight tangent, but there is also a large Nintendo base out there.  I
    remember reading an article recently that rumored that a sort of
    mystery port on each Nintendo box is rumored to allow Nintendo users
    future access to phone lines.  With a home terminal connection, perhaps
    Nintendo machines could also share the network.  Just a fanciful
    thought.
    
    Steve

    Whether Digital engineers understand the PC is a BIG factor that
    shows up throughout this discussion.
    
    5 times more connections terminate on a PC then on a dumb terminal.
    
    3 time as many connections to OUR systems terminate on a PC than
    on anything else (dump terminal, workstation ...).
    
    Most people designing interfaces for our products do not understand
    this environment.
    
    -kevin
    
    

    Hi, Kevin.
    
    Regarding 3 times as many connections to our systems being PCs, I am
    curious where this number came from.  So, far in nearly 5 years and at
    various sites in Mass and NH, I have only seen one IBM-compatible PC
    hooked up to our internal network.  Even this was done indirectly via
    some type of connection to a workstation that was hooked to the net.
    I probably misunderstand your statement here.  Is it that there are a
    lot of IBM-compatibles hooked to the Digital network in the field, or
    something?
    
    Steve

    By customers.  Granted many are running VTxxx emmulation but they
    are PC's (IBM and MAC).
    
    -Kevin
    

    I lost track where, but earlier someone said that there was no need for
    engineers working on products that do no directly impact PCs to become
    knowledgable about PCs.  I dispute this.
    
    The problem is that maybe they *should* be working on PC-impacting
    stuff instead!  But if managers, product managers, and technical
    leaders ignore that part of the market, they are not likely to initiate
    that kind of development.
    
    -----
    My comment that 64kb is enough was criticized.  Not fast enough for
    shipping Postscript files around.  I agree with that.  But shipping
    Postscript files around is a dumb thing to do.
    
    If you are running a WYSIWYG editor on your PC at home, there is no
    need to generate the PS file there and ship that to the office.  Just
    ship the word-processor's own file to the office and do the conversion
    there.  Postscript is a lousy format for document interchange.
    
    Even if you had a PS-capable printer at home, you would be better off
    to ship the other file and convert it again.
    
    This is the kind of software we can supply that makes these networks
    more usable;  the back-end format converters, PS generators, and such.

    The CCT is the paradigm of the '70s and '80s.  The "dumb terminal" of
    the '90s will, I suspect, use X Windows as its presentation (sort of)
    protocol, the way X3.64/VT200 extensions work in our CCTs.
    
    But XWS was not designed for serial lines; it's rather inefficient.
    At 9600 bps, the fastest dial-up modem speed (common), it's too slow.
    At 64000 bps (ISDN), it's usable, especially with compression.
    
    ISDN isn't available widely in the US because the phone companies make
    Digital's marketing prowess look spectacular.  It's becoming available
    in France, Japan and elsewhere quite widely this year.  The price is
    what the telco feels like, but in general it should converge to near
    ordinary voice.  That's enough to do quite a bit at home!
    
    Of course we're still waiting in NE.  ANd Digital Doesn't Have It Now. 
    (I won't mention, however, what the EIS guys in a certain European
    ISDN hotbed country are working on.)
       fred

    >The problem is that maybe they *should* be working on PC-impacting
    >stuff instead!  But if managers, product managers, and technical
    >leaders ignore that part of the market, they are not likely to initiate
    >that kind of development.
    
    Our entire product line should be PC related?
    
    I could agree with having more folks working in the PC space, but at
    the expense of all ongoing projects?
    
    
    

>ISDN isn't available widely in the US becasue the phone companies make
>Digital's marketing prowess look spectacular.

That's part of it.

ISDN _is_ available in every major city in the U.S.

But it doesn't work beyond the local exchange plant because of the arms-length
arrangement between local phone companies and long-distance companies required
by the Modified Final Judgement (a.k.a. Mother oF all Judgements).

/john

    re .41
    
    >  Our entire product line should be PC related?
    
    IMHO, yes.  *Related*.  All our software does not have to run on PCs,
    but the presence of PCs in our customer's corganization should always
    be on our minds, and we should look at how to best serve the people
    sitting in front of those PCs.
    
    >  But at the expense of all ongoing projects?
    
    Nearly all, yes.  Some projects just need to get their priorities
    adjusted.  Some are already ok.  IMHO.

Re .41:

	I think you have it backwards.  All our products ARE PC related in
    one way or another just as all our products have security aspects.  The
    fact that our engineers are unaware of the interaction of their products
    with PCs is a very bad sign.  It's time to climb down from the ivory
    tower and root around the compost heap where things are green and growing
    no mater how bad it smells.

Re .41:

>    ...It's time to climb down from the ivory
>    tower and root around the compost heap where things are green and growing
>    no mater how bad it smells.

	But that's the problem Bob, we've climbed down out of the ivory
    tower (hell, the market blew-up our damn ivory tower!), but the problem
    is that there is nothing much growing down here under our ivory tower.
    In fact, there isn't even a compost heap to root in!

	The reason is because the majority of people here at DEC (engineers
    etc.) simply do not have a "PC" at home to do any "rooting in the
    compost heap" with.  Instead, we have VTxxx's, or old obsolete Pro-350's,
    Pro-380's (me), Rainbows, or DECmates, and chances are, (like both the
    author of the basenote, myself, and probably others as well), they
    haven't a clue as to what it makes sense to invest in for home use
    (as a DEC employee) at this point.

	Why don't "we" know what sort of "home computer" to invest in?
    It's simple: as DECies, we want to buy DEC equipment if at all possible,
    yet there is no such thing as DEC equipment which is targeted for 
    the home computer market.  As such, we end up looking into the
    various strategic vendor products and what not (Tandy, Apple, etc.),
    but none of these really seem to jump out as being the obvious choice
    for an internal DECie to spend hard-earned dollars on.  These systems
    tend to be more geared towards the people who either already own, or
    want to extend their existing non-DEC computer systems such that they
    can ultimately migrate (or be migrated) to using DEC products.

	In the past, this hasn't really been a problem since we
    impoverished PC-less souls have managed to get by using a dumb
    terminals dialed-in via modem connections (which we have typically
    been allowed to drag home for quasi-personal use), but now (as Steve
    Sherman mentioned) we need to be able to do X-windows development work,
    and these things absolutely need a workstation and/or a higher bandwidth
    to operate.  As such, the dumb terminal at home simply no longer
    can cut it and we are now forced to look around at what is available
    for us in the market.  My guess is that this is no isolated problem
    either, and it will undoubtedly continue to grow as OSF and X/Motif
    becomes the defacto platform for the nineties.

	In some respects, it seems better to wait for the ultimate
    (cheap, fast, and good) home computer system which will allow one
    to do X/Motif development on, but I have my doubts as to whether
    such an ideal home computer system will have Digital's name on it.
    The reason is because we work for a company which originally led
    the charge against the hierarchical computer systems of the 50's
    and 60's towards personal computing, yet ironically, we now find
    ourselves to be among the most lacking in terms of personal computers!
    Sure, peer-to-peer computing is a nifty term, but you need to own
    a $15K+ workstation in order to belong to this club (at DEC anyway).

				  -davo

    >	I think you have it backwards.  All our products ARE PC related in
    >one way or another just as all our products have security aspects.  The
    >fact that our engineers are unaware of the interaction of their products
    >with PCs is a very bad sign.
    
    I'm still straining to understand why ALL engineers MUST learn PCs.
    Which PC?  Which PC network?  Which PC o/s?  Which PC appl?
    (BTW, I have a Macintosh and an IBM PC in my office, and I still
    see no need for EVERYTHING to be rotating around them.  They are
    necessary for much customer EIS work, but certainly not everything
    that customers are demanding.)
    
    In this time of interoperability and standards (de-facto and
    otherwise),  our customers already have merged their PCs into their
    environments 1,000 different ways.  Which PC 'standards' shall we
    focus our attention on?  Give me an example of an engineering area that 
    needs to be more PC literate for the customer's or product's sake.
    
    >It's time to climb down from the ivory
    >tower and root around the compost heap where things are green and growing
    >no mater how bad it smells.
    
    Our customers want both ivory towers and compost heaps... why step down
    when we can work with both? 
                                                                      

    (I was considering starting a new topic, but I might as well go with
    the flow of the discussion...)
    
    No, I don't think that it follows that every Digital engineer must
    learn PCs.  A higher level of PC awareness in the company probably
    would have some correlation to better integration of our products with
    PCs.  But any given engineer's proficiency with PCs is not a good
    indicator of how well Digital is doing/might do in the industry.
    
    However, I get this bad feeling that, having worked in Digital for a
    long time (15 years) and being able to do my job without really knowing
    PCs, and spending too much time on this home VT220 provided by Digital
    rather than on a PC of my own which I didn't think I could afford, this
    can be career-limiting, in the sense that my marketable skills in the
    computer industry are apparently declining dangerously.
    
    --Simon
    

    re .45
    
    You are missing the point.  Maybe the "need" you see to develop stuff
    for Motif is an illusion.  Maybe there is no such need.  The vast
    majority of people out there are doing fine on PCs and have no need for
    Motif.  Motif is *not* going to be the defacto standard of the 90s on
    any platforms except big workstations.
    
    If we are going to support many kinds of desktops we should not make
    the technology for *one* of those desktops central to our designs.
    
    Which PC should an engineer learn?  Any of them.  Even an Amiga.
    Just so they become aware of what kinds of things are going on.
    
    Simon was right: if all you know is VMS, VTs, and workstations then
    your skills are rapidly becoming obsolete.  You will have a niche, but
    that niche is going to get crowded and all of us will not be able to
    fit in.

    Amen to the last three replies.  This hit close to home as far as what
    I try to do on the computer, literally.  I want to:
    
    	1) Do Motif and X-window development
    	2) Keep my skills marketable
    	3) Do the right things with my (and my cost center's) cash
    
    Digital currently provides no obvious solution to any of these.  At
    least, there aren't any solutions that I would want to commit big
    dollars on.  I wish we did.  I could see investing my own money in it
    in case I was to leave the company and either go it on my own or work
    for somebody else.  
    
    Ironically, by keeping my skills marketable, I feel that Digital stands a 
    better chance of keeping me.  This is because I need to feel that the 
    company I work for is interested in keeping up with the market and 
    industry trends.  And, if they are really interested in doing this, they 
    will be interested in my keeping up with these trends.
    
    Here's more food for thought, lifted from today's VTX:
    

 IBM - Sets accord with AT&T
        {The Wall Street Journal, 26-Mar-91, p. B4}
   Industry executives said IBM and AT&T today will say they are going to
 cooperate in the important area of network management. IBM and AT&T have been
 two of the biggest competitors in the U.S. - with Digital being the third. But
 there have been limitations for each system. An AT&T system might not
 recognize an "alert" that an IBM computer would send across the network when a
 data line went down. Or IBM's system might not be able to look deeply enough
 into the AT&T network to automatically look up a customer's bill and present
 to the operator when the operator answer's that customer's call. So AT&T and
 IBM said they will make sure their systems speak a common language and
 cooperate with each other. "you have the best of both worlds," said Michael
 Kennedy, head of corporate networking at Arthur D. Little, Cambridge, Mass. "I
 think this is an important step." The IBM-AT&T accord should have the side
 benefit for users of helping set a standard for others in the market, too.
 "With these guys doing it, everyone will have to follow suit," said Jerry
 McDowell, a consultant with Meta Group, Westport, Conn.

     

    re: .48
    
    It is my impression that Motif is likely to become one of the managers
    that will be seen on PCs of the future and not just workstations.  As I
    recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) Digital, IBM and Microsoft on the OSF 
    committee that is developing the Motif standard.  One may also note
    great similarities between DECwindows, MS Windows and so forth.  They
    all are leaning toward the standard and this is not by accident.
    
    The problems that Motif addresses on PCs include portability between
    operating systems, ease of use for new users and standardizations that
    can reduce development time.  These are issues that plague current PC
    users and developers.
    
    Steve

    Macintosh computers already have all that stuff.  And PCs running
    MSWindows do too.

    What PCs lack right now that workstations have is performance.  It has
    been described as the four major reasons for buying a workstation
    instead of a PC (performance, performance, performance, performance).
    My understanding is that Motif on a Mac, for example, kills performance.
    When dealing with windows and other sophisticated software, performance 
    is very important.  So, you can spend the big bucks and either turn your 
    PC into "almost" a workstation.  Or, you can spend the big bucks and 
    spring for a workstation.  Either way you end up spending the big bucks.
    
    Why can't we get a low-cost terminal that can be connected from home
    through a high-bandwidth network to the big machines?  What is wanted
    is high-performance (with Motif or other sophisticated window system) at 
    low cost at home.  This is basically the same argument that led to the 
    successful use of dumb terminals in the workplace.  The market window
    for dumb terminals at the workplace was shut with inexpensive hardware
    for the desktop.  It eventually became cheap enough that mortals could
    also afford to have such hardware at home.  At one time, with a fast
    modem and a VTxxx you might have had all the access from home that you 
    had at work.  But, no more.
    
    There is an argument that a PC can do it all, just add the right boards
    to it.  How many folks are content with the performance of the original
    PC?  How long will they be content with the AT?  The problem is that
    these systems are NOT designed to keep up with the upgrades that occur
    to high-performance machines and software.  You have to buy new PCs and 
    software and such if you want to keep up.  
    
    The lowly VTxxx line has actually done a pretty good job of keeping up 
    with the upgrades at work.  Lots of folks are still using VT220s, even 
    VT100s from home to access massive computes.  The resolution of my lowly 
    VT240 is still pretty high even by today's PC standards, as I understand 
    them.  What's it cost to get a VT320 with a keyboard and a modem nowadays?
    $300?  (I could be off here.)  $300 is about what it costs to get just a 
    '386 chip in lots of 100.  You need to add another $1500 or so before
    you can get access to the machines at work.  More if you want to do some 
    serious Motif or other sophisticated windows stuff.
    
    Disparity exists between the computing power you can access at work and 
    what you can access at home.  No matter how much you can afford to put 
    into a PC, your company probably has a bigger, faster, more capable machine
    with more software sitting and doing virtually nothing at night when 
    everybody goes home.  Whoever can bridge that gap at a low cost could
    probably make some serious bucks.  I just can't buy the attitude that,
    for example, you'll never need more than 64 kbs, 1MB RAM, 10 MIPs or
    100 MB.  Reminds me of the old days when folks thought a computer would
    never need more than 8K or so of memory ...
    
    
    Steve

re: X/Motif = defacto standard?,

    	It's anybody's bet, but my money is on X/Motif.  Why?  Because
    X-Windows has been adopted by enough high power computer industry
    giants as *the* network graphics protocol (which is all X really is).
    The only real competition to X (in the Unix world anyway - which is
    also destined to rule the market for the immediate as well as distant
    future) might be NeWS, which is similar except that it is based on
    Postscript (TM).  Aside from the fact that Postscript (TM) is very
    popular for printing, my guess is that it isn't quite efficient as
    an asynch network graphics protocol such as X-windows (feel free to
    argue this point).  In any case, X seems to be more popular.

    	As for Motif, it was chosen by OSF (Open Software Foundation)
    to be the superior implementation of X-Windows.  My understanding
    (last time I pulled my head out of the sand) is that Motif was IBM's
    equivalent to DECwindows (which could have been chosen but wasn't).
    I'm not exactly clear on the reasons why X/Motif was chosen by OSF,
    but one reason I seem to remember reading was because it was available
    early on for PC's and this made it catch on like wildfire.  Another
    reason could simply be because it came from IBM, and it was therefore
    "legitimized" in the eyes of the orthodox IBM crowd.

    	Finally, one reason why "DECwindows" might not have been chosen
    by OSF: who in their right mind is going to pick as the graphical user
    interface for an operating system which is based entirely on the notion
    of open software and its non-proprietary nature, a product whose company's
    name is emblazened upon every icon, window, and application ("DECwindows")? 
    Perhaps we should think twice before prefixing any more software product
    names with the "DEC" label?

				  -davo

p.s.	Ok, so I'm also guilty as I am the author of "DECpulse".	

	re: .53

>    	As for Motif, it was chosen by OSF (Open Software Foundation)
>    to be the superior implementation of X-Windows.  My understanding
>    (last time I pulled my head out of the sand) is that Motif was IBM's
>    equivalent to DECwindows (which could have been chosen but wasn't).

	That ain't the way I heard it :-). Unless I've completely lost
	my memory, Motif is basically the DECwindows toolkit with the
	HP look and feel.  That's why the Xm calls in Motif are almost
	identical to the Dwt calls in DECwindows.  I've never heard of
	any significant component that was contributed by IBM, at least
	for Motif 1.0 (Don't know about 1.1).

   As I understand it, Motif's API is based on the XUI (DECwindows V1 and V2)
apis, but its look and feel are inherited from HP, who basically copied
MS-windows and presentation manager's appearance to a degree.  (Definitely
true, speaking as a person who uses PM regularly at home.)

   Motif and X will never make it on the PC.  Their programming interfaces
make MS-windows look lean, mean and modern!  For my opinions on X, see a
recent topic in the marketing conference on why Unix won't win the
desktop.  Motif is too bloated to fit usably on anything with as little
memory as 4meg.

   MS-windows, as bad as it is, is much more likely to set the shape for
what the "big OS" windowing systems will look like in the future, rather
than the other way around.  If for no other reason than it's so bloody
cheap - both in pure $$$ for the software and the cost of the hardware to
run it.  Geez, the PC folks think that OS/2, which likes 3-4 meg, is bloated,
do you think that they're going to run Motif?  ha!


					-mjg

    	I should mention that I based my assumptions in my previous note
    on an admittedly somewhat dated article (the monthly Technology column
    by John Blackford) entitled "Toward A Unified Unix" which appeared in
    the March 20, 1990 edition of Personal Computing magazine.  The article
    mentioned the competition between two different X-window implementations:
    OSF/Motif, and OpenLook, and proceeded to draw the following conclusions
    (from page 55):

    		"SCO has adopted OSF/Motif for its Unix, while
    		AT&T and Sun use OpenLook.  Thus OSF/Motif holds
    		the edge on PCs, while OpenLook is stronger on
    		workstations.  Not surprizingly, given the Micro-
    		soft connection, OSF/Motif has the look and feel
    		of Presentation Manager (which itself conforms to
    		IBM's emerging SAA interface definition)."

    	Nowhere is HP mentioned, although the article doesn't go into
    too much detail about the actual design of OSF/Motif.  In John Blackford's
    Technology column from the following month's edition of Personal Computing,
    he reiterates many of the same conclusions about Motif.  (from page 43):

    		"The chief interface contenders are: Open Look
    		(Sun/AT&T), Motif (Open Software Foundation), and
    		NextStep (Next, Inc.).  Only a few months ago, a
    		nasty little war raged over which of the three
    		would dominate.  For anyone using Intel-based PCs,
    		the shooting match is all but over and Motif is
    		the winner."

    	As to who contributed the most to the development of Motif, it
    is rather unclear from the article, but he does mention the following
    (from later on the same page):

    		"So far, Motif is the one big success of the Open
    		Software Foundation (OSF) - the industry group
    		formed in response to fears that the alliance
    		between AT&T and Sun would keep Unix development
    		from being truly open.  OSF based the Motif interface
    		on contributions from several manufacturers.  A key
    		to its acceptance was SCO's designation last
    		summer of Motif as the GUI for SCO Unix V Release 3.2.
    		Since SCO sells more Unix packages than anyone and
    		is *the* Unix force among PCs, the company's
    		endorsement legitimized the interface..."

    				  -davo

p.s.	I have just purchased a complete set of X/Motif reference manuals,
    	so hopefully I can elaborate on this more fully in time.

    Sure running an X server on a Mac is not going to be very fast.
    But why would you want to do such a thing?  The Mac already *has*
    a windowing system that runs very fast indeed.  The old Mac-II at one
    end of my desk regularly leaves the VS3100-SPX at the other end in the
    dust.
    
    What fraction of a percent of desktops does something have to appear on
    before it gets called a "defacto standard"?

    Another advantage of going to Motif is that you don't have to be
    restricted to operating on a Mac.  So, if you do development on an
    X-server the work you do will probably be more portable than when you
    limit yourself to the Mac's window interface.
    
    Steve

    Programming to Motif may make your code portable to more *platforms*,
    but not to more *desktops*.  That is too low of a level to be using in
    application code.  We isolate our programs from the differences between
    disk drive technologies; so likewise we should isolate our programs
    from the differences between GUI technologies.
    
    See for example Neuron Data's Open Interface product.  This is a tool
    that builds interfaces for OS/2 PM, MSwindows, Mac, Motif, and Open
    Look, all with the same API.

RE: .56 (history of Motif)

OSF used the RFT (Request For Technology) process to request proposals from
its members and from other interested parties on windowing toolkit technology.
It had already decided on X windows as the basic windowing system and the RFT
also required that the proposal use MIT's Xt Intrinsics (which were designed
at DEC's System Research Laboratory in Palo Alto as part of our cooperative
work with MIT on Project Athena).  There were several submissions in response
to the RFT and two finalists:  DEC, with XUI, and a joint HP/Microsoft
submission, based on Presentation Manager's 3-D look and feel.  OSF thought
that the look and feel of the HP/Microsoft submission was better (they were
right, in my opinion), but liked XUI's programming interface better.  They
finally accepted a hybrid incorporating the look and feel of the HP/Microsoft
proposal with the programming interface of DEC's XUI.  The result (after
various other random tinkerings by the OSF folks) is what we call Motif today.

The IBM connection with Presentation Manager is rather tenuous.  Microsoft
did all the design work and IBM more or less rubber-stamped it and gave it
the blessing (or is that curse?) of being part of SAA.


RE: .57 (how widespread must it be to be a de facto standard?)

The de facto standard windowing system is Microsoft's Windows V3.  Microsoft
sells more units each month than the entire Motif installed base.  When
you look at what's actually on people's desktops, computer-wise, IBM PCs,
IBM PC clones, and Macintoshes dominate.  Unix workstations are in the noise.
It is amazing that we continue to doggedly pursue such a relatively small niche
market while almost entirely ignoring PCs.

--PSW

re Note 1406.48 by KOBAL::DICKSON:

>     If we are going to support many kinds of desktops we should not make
>     the technology for *one* of those desktops central to our designs.
>     
>     Which PC should an engineer learn?  Any of them.  Even an Amiga.
>     Just so they become aware of what kinds of things are going on.
  
        Agreed -- the point is that the computer industry, and the
        computing environment for almost every enterprise larger than
        some reasonably small size, is heterogeneous.

        Yet the holy grail for the computer industry has always been,
        at least in the 25 years I've been associated with it, the
        notion that a hardware-independent platform could be built so
        that an application built on one system could operate on any
        system.  (As time went on, substitute "operating system
        independent" for "hardware independent" -- the problem is
        fundamentally the same.)

        This has been approximated, with varying degrees of success,
        by the common third-generation languages, the UCSD p-system,
        and even Unix.  Yet the most phenomenally successful hardware
        family is one that consists essentially of clones of one
        another (forced forever to incorporate technological advances
        only in ways that don't break the common heritage).

        If we succeed this time, with NAS, we will then have one
        platform which we could learn once and apply to all
        environments.  But we're not there yet.  My bet is that the
        race will then shift to competition among distributed
        platforms, some of which will succeed just because they come
        integrated in very popular packages such as MS-DOS, MS
        Windows, or the Mac OS.

        Bob

re: .60,

	Thanks for the historical tidbits!  Neither my OSF/Motif
    Programmer Reference, Style, nor User Guide elaborate on any of
    the interesting history behind OSF.

re: .61,

	It's really pretty amazing to think of viewing the entire
    world of computing through a window on a PC, but that's exactly
    what the vast majority of businesses do.  Software houses need
    only address the market from the perspective of what wonderful
    computer resources (i.e. minis & mainframes) their PC software 
    will allow the customer to utilize in order to wow them.

				-davo

Looks like I picked the wrong time to stop monitoring *this* notes conference.

I'm the development manager of Motif and would just like to add a little to
Paul's excellent "Motif history" lesson in .60 as an FYI:  The actual
development of Motif was performed as a joint effort between HP and DEC.
HP did the window manager and most of the toolkit (using our DECwindows
toolkit as a start) and DEC did the UIL compiler and the remainder of the 
toolkit.  This also happened for V1.1.

					steve

re:             <<< Note 1406.42 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>        -< Why buy it if it won't work between Maynard and Merrimack? >-

>ISDN _is_ available in every major city in the U.S.

>But it doesn't work beyond the local exchange plant because of the arms-length
>arrangement between local phone companies and long-distance companies required
>by the Modified Final Judgement (a.k.a. Mother oF all Judgements).
    
    Simply not true.  The MFJ has nothing to do with it -- telcos are
    allowed to use Signaling System 7 for basic call control.  Most telcos,
    however, simply refuse to provide ISDN for non-Centrex users, or only
    provide it in very limited areas, or both.  New England Tel proposes
    having ISDN in 12 central offices in 1991, out of hundreds.  And even
    there, they haven't bothered to put SS7 in any of their MA CO's yet, so
    the data calls are limited to intra-CO use:  Maynard can't even call
    Concord (not that either has ISDN planned) without it.  By 12/92, SS7
    should be available.
    
    In areas where SS7 is in place (many areas outside New England), ISDN
    will work fine.  (Of cousre, SS7 also gives you features like Caller
    ID, which raise unwarranted controversy.)  One of the main driving
    forces for ISDN could be working at home with decent bandwidth (as in
    "X"), but Bell companies are still in the teletype age.
    
    Some people tend to blame the AT&T breakup for everything from the
    Spanish Inquisition to AIDS.  'Tain't so.  Keeping Bell companies from
    re-monopolizing telecom is vital to our survival, at least in the
    network business.

    
    Caller ID has been available in many MA exchanges for some months.
    It is being made available to customers on a staged basis.
    
    Judge Green is the author of the first really obscene literature
    (his ruling) that I ever felt like censoring.
    
    Any form of networking requiring 'de-reg' to prosper - should be
    terminated.
    
    Note: All of the above is, of course, IMNSHO. 
    
    J.B.

I would turn that around.  Any form of networking requiring regulation to be
viable isn't beneficial to society.  I personally have experienced nothing but
beneficial effects from degregulation.

But this tangent is off the topic of this conference.  See you in SOAPBOX.....

--PSW

>    In areas where SS7 is in place (many areas outside New England), ISDN
>    will work fine.

While the MFJ is not specifically preventing New England Telephone from
installing ISDN within the LATA, the fact that the interexchange carriers
are required by the MFJ to stay at arms length from the local exchange
carriers has prevented ISDN from working between any two LATAs in the
country.

Please name one place in the entire country where ISDN works beyond the
boundaries of a Local Access and Transport Area (LATA).  As far as I know
Rochester Telephone has the only local exchange switch connected to AT&T
via SS7.  And they are not an RBOC.  And that's only one point; we need at
least two!

While not the only factor in the equation, the fact is that even if N.E.T.
could provide ISDN to every subscriber in New England, AT&T, Sprint, MCI,
and the others have no "equal access" way to connect their interexchange
network to your local exchange.  This is true even in areas such as Bell
South, where the entire network is SS7 within the LATAs, but not beyond.

This prevents your ISDN call placed in Maynard from getting to Merrimack,
or from Atlanta to Nashville, or from Jacksonville to Miami.

This certainly makes less people likely to order ISDN, and makes telcos less
interested in providing it.

/john