[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: satisfied customer
At 09:52 AM 3/21/96 -0500, W. Curtiss Priest wrote:
>Ah! Then my next question is this. Wouldn't it make sense for telcos
>to build systems that detect modem carriers and that do discriminate --
>and only haul the actual data? Certainly this is not difficult to
Yes. In fact, I think this sort of thing has been done. In the networking
world, this is called spoofing. It is commonly used in bridges
to avoid sending broadcast packets that can easily be generated
by the other end of the bridge. Terminal servers have also
sometimes been written to notice that a file-transfer protocol (e.g. XMODEM) is
in use, and handle protocol handshake locally.
Even the telcos sometimes recognize fax tones and behave differently
for fax calls sometimes, I seem to recall. (Might be wrong about this.)
I think it would make great sense. But the telco equipment would
probably require upgrading to more than just the line cards,
so it might be quite expensive. I proposed a few months ago that
telcos not charge for ISDN calls - even local ones - that were on
hold. You can't ask for a clearer hint than that to know you don't
need to send data - but the telcos all acted like I was an idiot.
"It still ties up bandwidth!" they cried. Go figure.
So if they can't take advantage of a chance like that, there's
no way they'll do something fancy like spoofing.
Unless, that is, it saves them money. That is, don't count on
them passing the savings on to you even if they implement such a