michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us (Michel Py) wrote on
16.11.04 in
<DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B0DB487(_at_)server2003(_dot_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>:
Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the
network that's really out there, not the network some
of us wish were there.
grenville armitage wrote:
I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types
said much the same thing to the emerging packet-switching
fanatics 30+ years ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the
same to "Internet fanatics" 15+ years ago.
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:
I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^
Whereas I have used ISDN for over a decade now, and so have enough Germans
that it's been very many years that pretty much every BBS switched to
support ISDN.
I hear you still use 56k Modems in the US. When people switched to ISDN
64k over here, "fast" typically was 14.4k. It's been quite a while since I
last used a modem ... 80's tech.
ISDN which 10 years ago was supposed to be the digital miracle that
would save us from the analog crap and take over the world
... well, over here that is pretty much exactly what happened ...
never took
off because the price was not worth the gain,
Aah. Capitalism at work, eh?
Over here, a standard ISDN line (two channels, three numbers) costs pretty
much exactly the same as two analog lines (two channels, two numbers), and
always has.
Makes for a slightly different cost equation.
the majority of phones and
dial-up still are analog and now ISDN costs _more_ than DSL or cable for
low-end data.
That's just ridiculous.
MfG Kai
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf