🚀 go-pugleaf

This kina sounds like the stupidity you see at many offices. They will
pay huge bucks for these "word processing networks". Brand names
nobody's heard of, not compatible with anything and the main program
runs on an IBM PC with someone elses name slapped on there. Try
WordStar or WordImperfect with a server.

As far as USWest's plans go, I'm sure they hired some idiot consultant
that has no REAL experience with _how_ people use computers. What they
should do is hire Andrew Burt and pay him a nice fat consulting fee to
show them how to set up their system and link it in with various
networks. Hmm..Wouldn't AT&T actually be a better company to work with
on a project like this?

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}  I've got seven in the clip and one      |
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}  in the chamber. Will that be enough??   |
==============================================================================

In article <1992Sep11.145101.7594@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>
>
>Today I just read in the Rocky Mt. News that it will be $15/month +
>$.15/minute for -- are you ready -- nothing more than an on-line
>phonebook.  (You get software, or for $300 flat or $12/month more, a
>simple terminal.)  Supposedly just unveiled for Minneapolis.

Minitel terminals are free in France, so is access to the online phone
directory. Commercial services are about 1 FF/minute ($.20/min).
>
>Reason #1: Maybe at $.50/month it would work.  Geez, I pay $14/month
>for one phone line!  Your average person is not going to shell out
>this much when phone books are virtually free (and mostly easier to
>use).  How often do you REALLY look things up in the phone book or
>call directory assistance?  If it were worth $.10 to look something up
>(about what it's worth to me on-line), this implies I need to look up
>150 items a month.  And if one search takes a couple minutes (to wade
>through the clunky menus) this is already at $.30 a search.  If I use
>this "a lot" and look up 100 items a month, I'm looking at $45/month
>for this!  Fubar.

One of the reasons of the relative success of Minitel in France is the
amazing amount of subsidies that went into the project. I think that France
Telecom is several billion Francs into the red because of this.

>Reason #3: Videotex.  Blech!  I think MS-windows and X have proven
>that even non-computer-geeks can read decently small size fonts on
>screens; we don't need to regress to the middle-ages here with 40
>character wide screens (which the picture showed; or is it 32?).  (As
>for the "transmission speed" argument, I'd rather it be just a
>straight ASCII text interface; either that, or use it as grounds to
>justify ISDN for homes.)

The screen is 24x40, with "semi-graphic" characters - uuuugly. Transmission
is an asymetric 1200/75 baud.
Some Minitel terminals support 80x24 but there's no way around the internal
modem. France Telecom plans a second generation "high-performance" terminal
working at a blazing 4800 bps. Wheee.

>
>Reason #4: Another Propietary Program.  Presumably we won't be able to
>dial in with Procomm, or telnet in via the internet.  Bag it right
>there.  It'll be too limited for real use (as they always are), buggy,
>clunky ...

Possibly the most FAQ in soc.culture.french: how do I get access to Minitel
from Internet (or vice/versa). The awful truth is: there is no public
gateway.

In article <1992Sep11.171853.11096@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>As far as USWest's plans go, I'm sure they hired some idiot consultant
>that has no REAL experience with _how_ people use computers. What they
>
You're sure, huh?

Look. How about NOT making any degrading comments about something you know
absolutely NOTHING about? What information  do you have? If ANY (which
I doubt), would you mind sharing?

And on another point, I am also pissed at US WEST (the phone
company). But US WEST is widely spread, and when people say US WEST,
(like I have above) they MEAN the phone company. The Phone company
(i.e. US WEST Communications) has absolutely NOTHING to do with this
venture. It is by US WEST MRG and US WEST Direct. US WEST consist of
many little companies, that are basically entities. This of course
is not by choice, but by law (and the law sucks).

That's all I want (and can) say for now, except, get informed before you
flame.
>Eric
>______________________________________________________________________________
>|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}  I've got seven in the clip and one      |
>|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}  in the chamber. Will that be enough??   |
>==============================================================================

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------

elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:

>This kina sounds like the stupidity you see at many offices. They will
>pay huge bucks for these "word processing networks". Brand names
>nobody's heard of, not compatible with anything and the main program
>runs on an IBM PC with someone elses name slapped on there. Try
>WordStar or WordImperfect with a server.
(and some 'Bog standard' ethernet/token ring networking)

>As far as USWest's plans go, I'm sure they hired some idiot consultant
>that has no REAL experience with _how_ people use computers. What they
>should do is hire Andrew Burt and pay him a nice fat consulting fee to
>show them how to set up their system and link it in with various
>networks. Hmm..Wouldn't AT&T actually be a better company to work with
>on a project like this?

It sounds amazing that a telephone company can 'fluff up' networking,
then again maybe not.

kberlin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimon Berlin) writes:

>One of the reasons of the relative success of Minitel in France is the
>amazing amount of subsidies that went into the project. I think that France
>Telecom is several billion Francs into the red because of this.

French Telecom is a state owned company, Governments are likely
to be regarded as better risks for investers than private companies.
Though I think lots of private money is now going in, as french
companies make use of the service.
(minitel originally was intended a telephone directory system,
it is now used fo many other things, any french people care 
to comment on the project?)

Just to correct an error by aburt (I think):
The price for the electronic directory is NOT $15/month + .15/minute.
I don't know where the 15 dollars came from (maybe the NEWS got it wrong?),
but it's 'just' .15/minute. No more. The reasons for that are a bit 
complicated, since we wanted to offer this free of charge, but
due to limitations and restrictions (thanks, judge green) we
couldn't.

Nuff said (too much maybe)



-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------

In article <1992Sep11.181011.11554@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.ca
r.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.171853.11096@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.ca
r.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>>As far as USWest's plans go, I'm sure they hired some idiot consultant
>>that has no REAL experience with _how_ people use computers. What they
>>
>You're sure, huh?
>
>Look. How about NOT making any degrading comments about something you kn
w
>absolutely NOTHING about? What information  do you have? If ANY (which
>I doubt), would you mind sharing?
>
>And on another point, I am also pissed at US WEST (the phone
>company). But US WEST is widely spread, and when people say US WEST,
>(like I have above) they MEAN the phone company. The Phone company
>(i.e. US WEST Communications) has absolutely NOTHING to do with this
>venture. It is by US WEST MRG and US WEST Direct. US WEST consist of
>many little companies, that are basically entities. This of course
>is not by choice, but by law (and the law sucks).
>
>That's all I want (and can) say for now, except, get informed before you
>flame.
>>Eric
>>_______________________________________________________________________
______
>>|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}  I've got seven in the clip and one
     |
>>|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}  in the chamber. Will that be enoug
??   |
>>=======================================================================
======
>
>-- 
> Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.25
.1.4]
> (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
>--------------------------------------------------


I think what Eric means is this:  
He is 'SURE' that _IF_ US West had hired a consultant that knew _how_
people use computers, then they damn sure wouldn't have come up with the
hare (hair?) brained scheme that we are all talking about here.
I think his 'flame' (as you called it) was completely in line with the
debate.  He made a very valid point.  US West, whether it's the phone
company or Lily Tomlin snorting in a headset, either way have committed to
a system that even the geniuses in the Air Force that buy $600.00 toilet
seats wouldn't buy.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'committed' since it conjures up
images that our system administrator here would like to see implemented
upon the "phone company" pinheads that are behind this deal.
I pay this "entity" of little companies every month and not once have they
ever put a note in my bill to say that they are sorry for some policy or
somesuch that isn't really their fault since they are just one of several
units that can't seem to think in a straight line at the same time.
When I say "US West", I say it in the same manner that most people say
when they refer to "the Government".  L
Like a four letter word.

Uncle Fester

--
:  Master,                        :       Uncle Fester       : Printed  :
:    Me and Rex took the kar      :   thester@nyx.cs.du.edu  : on 100%  :
:    to town. Stay home. Stay!    :         -or try-         :recyclable:
:       Ha ha ha ha.   The dog.   :    T.HESTER4 on GEnie    : phosphor :

In article <1992Sep11.215551.21484@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) writes:
>I think what Eric means is this:  
>He is 'SURE' that _IF_ US West had hired a consultant that knew _how_
>people use computers, then they damn sure wouldn't have come up with the
>hare (hair?) brained scheme that we are all talking about here.
>I think his 'flame' (as you called it) was completely in line with the
>debate.  He made a very valid point.  US West, whether it's the phone

That's not what he said, or meant.

>upon the "phone company" pinheads that are behind this deal.

And it's not the phone company, OR pinheads behind this deal.

>I pay this "entity" of little companies every month and not once have they
>ever put a note in my bill to say that they are sorry for some policy or
>somesuch that isn't really their fault since they are just one of several
>units that can't seem to think in a straight line at the same time.

Wrong (in a way). You are right in that you pay the entity money.
That money goes EXCLUSIVELY to US WEST COMM. All other subsidiaries
of US WEST Inc. have nothing at all (I repeat at all) to do with COMM.
We have to pay the phone bill we have, too, like any other company,
although we carry the NAME US WEST.
And we have the same agravation as everyone else with 'the phone company'.

>When I say "US West", I say it in the same manner that most people say
>when they refer to "the Government".  L
>Like a four letter word.
>
That may very well be, but you are still confusing the phone company
and whatever subsidiary it is, that put out the product. They have NOTHING
to do with eac other.

I say to you what I said to Eric: get informed before spewing out
a bunch of garbage on the net. You have no clue. After all, what have you
read about either the product (Electronic Directory) OR US WEST?
What do you know about the internal organization of US WEST? What
do you know of the limitations put on the Baby Bells by lunkheads
in Congress and courts? Go read up, and come back. Now go play.

(I apoligize for the harsh tone: I get pissed off when people
start flaming about things and have not even gone through the motions
to get knowledgeable about the subject)

>Uncle Fester
>

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------

In <1992Sep11.230902.13800@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.215551.21484@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> thester@nyx.cs.du.edu (Uncle Fester) writes:
>>I think what Eric means is this:  
>>He is 'SURE' that _IF_ US West had hired a consultant that knew _how_
>>people use computers, then they damn sure wouldn't have come up with the
>>hare (hair?) brained scheme that we are all talking about here.
>>I think his 'flame' (as you called it) was completely in line with the
>>debate.  He made a very valid point.  US West, whether it's the phone

>That's not what he said, or meant.

True; I took it in the sense of "this is so stupid it implies they must
have hired some consultant who doesn't have a clue", and while I wouldn't
have put it in such harsh terms, I agree with the sentiment, that *from*what*
I've*seen*so*far it looks really retarded.  I dearly hope someone can
convince me this is superior to any existing products, including superior
to services found on the internet, the internet itself, existing pay
services like Tragedy and Compu$erve, "standards" like X or ms-windows
for graphics, etc.  If you show me a better mousetrap I'll buy it.
(If you don't overcharge -- price/performance is still an issue.)

>>upon the "phone company" pinheads that are behind this deal.

>And it's not the phone company, OR pinheads behind this deal.

>>... "entity" of little companies...

Agreed in part -- but (a) since it is a subsidiary of what used to be
ONLY "the phone company" most people feel it is an outgrowth of "the
phone company", and indeed this is true; (b) they are covered by basically
the same body of regulations; (c) the money all goes into the same
shareholder and executive pockets as USWest Comm's profits do; (d) because
of (a) through (c) they can wield the name like a club, and people pay
attention.

Also (e) [where I now get on uncertain ground] they have direct
access to the phone number databases needed to implement a directory
service, whereas an outside company would have to (I presume) pay for
this information, and somehow pay to keep it updated.  I.e., I
naively imagine it like this: the "old phone company" had all this data
about phone numbers; during the breakup, the data was taken by Entity X
without "paying" anyone for it ("paying" in the sense of transferring
money outside the USWest shareholder domain; I'm sorry, but "transfer
pricing", like when you say "we have to pay the phone co. too" is moot
for this discussion since it has no bearing on the share price of the
stock -- USWest as a whole is not losing profit).  So, point (e) is that
entity X had this data nicely dropped in its lap, whereas some other
company (say Compu$erve) would have to pay dearly to obtain or construct it.

Witness, for example, the "competition" (Not!) in yellow page books.
While some companies have bravely started up new yellow pags, we all
(do we not?) laugh them off.  They're incomplete.  My point (e) applies
to this too: the uswest-direct yellow pages STARTED WITH the existing
full database of customers. A new yellow pages maker must either buy that
data or build their own, which is nearly impossible given that there's
already an existing YP that most services are already listed in.  I'm sure
I'll be corrected if I've misunderstood the YP situation.

Tricky subject (if I'm correct) since:  We can't throw out the existing
uswestYP and say "ok, start over from scratch" since we'd be without
YP for a few years.  But, by it's mere continued existence, it prevents
successful competition.

>I say to you what I said to Eric: get informed before spewing out
>a bunch of garbage on the net. You have no clue. After all, what have you
>read about either the product (Electronic Directory) OR US WEST?
>What do you know about the internal organization of US WEST?

Ah, too many embarrassing (to USW) stories for me to tell.  I've done
quite a bit of consulting with many different USW units, so I feel
pretty secure in saying "it's messed up". :-)

>What
>do you know of the limitations put on the Baby Bells by lunkheads
>in Congress and courts? Go read up, and come back. Now go play.

Or you could help by educating us, or at least point us to some on-line
info about this.

>(I apoligize for the harsh tone: I get pissed off when people
>start flaming about things and have not even gone through the motions
>to get knowledgeable about the subject)

Well, it all started with a newspaper and TV account of it.  This mere
and minor reporting started this avalanche -- so what folks SAW of it
was enough to get people strongly up in arms against it.  I know the
media isn't always the most accurate, but there must be some grains of
truth in what was said/shown, and we're all saying we don't like ANY of
what we saw.

If it's really awesome, then entity X has done a negligently bad job
of presenting it! :-)
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"

In <1992Sep11.180537.13946@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kberlin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimon Berlin) writes:

>Minitel terminals are free in France, so is access to the online phone
>directory. Commercial services are about 1 FF/minute ($.20/min).

>The screen is 24x40, with "semi-graphic" characters - uuuugly. Transmission
>is an asymetric 1200/75 baud.
>Some Minitel terminals support 80x24 but there's no way around the internal
>modem. France Telecom plans a second generation "high-performance" terminal
>working at a blazing 4800 bps. Wheee.

Jan, are you listening?  

Kimon, could you give us more details?  How do people feel about it in
France:  How do the technical people feel, who know the maximum potential?
And how to the common folks feel?  Also, are the common folks as likely
as US folks to have, e.g., a 386 with ms-windows on it?  (Last I heard,
about 1/3 of households had computers, and I'm sure a high percentage of
them have at least seen something like ms-windows; of the 2/3 that don't
have computers, many use them at work or have at least seen ms-windows.
I'm no fan of windows, but I'd take that any day over videotex!)
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"

In <1992Sep11.212926.12920@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>Just to correct an error by aburt (I think):
>The price for the electronic directory is NOT $15/month + .15/minute.
>I don't know where the 15 dollars came from (maybe the NEWS got it wrong?),
>but it's 'just' .15/minute. No more.

Correct to assume no charge for the software?  No setup fee?
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"

In article <1992Sep12.145239.13719@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>is an asymetric 1200/75 baud.
>>Some Minitel terminals support 80x24 but there's no way around the internal
>>modem. France Telecom plans a second generation "high-performance" terminal
>>working at a blazing 4800 bps. Wheee.
>
>Jan, are you listening?  
>
I'm listening, and I knew this all before. Think about it. If you try and
make something cheaper, you cut it back. In the case of modems,
who can type faster then 75 baud anyway. Receiveing at 1200, sending at 75.
Makes sense (at the time).
As for the 4800 I hadn't heard of that.

>Kimon, could you give us more details?  How do people feel about it in
>France:  How do the technical people feel, who know the maximum potential?
>And how to the common folks feel?  Also, are the common folks as likely
>as US folks to have, e.g., a 386 with ms-windows on it?  (Last I heard,
>about 1/3 of households had computers, and I'm sure a high percentage of
>them have at least seen something like ms-windows; of the 2/3 that don't
>have computers, many use them at work or have at least seen ms-windows.
>I'm no fan of windows, but I'd take that any day over videotex!)
>
As for the public: anywhere you see a 1-800 number in the US you would see a
videotex access code in france (signs on the side of the road, ads on TV..).

As for computers, the figures you quoted are higher than the ones I had heard.
And that also leaves the question what do they do with it.
Besides it is unfair to compare windows or mac or X to videotex. It
wasn't designed to be an operating system. You can run a videotex
emulator on ANY of them, without noticing anything bad. There are
emulators free of charge out there for Mac and PC (I have them both),
and maybe you want to program one for X?

I reiterate: People on the net (andrew in particular) are too narrowly focused
on the net. They have learned to live with it. Most people don't.
Most people don't and don't have the high expectations as we do (see Prodigy).

I would like to see the net and netnews and email more widespread than
it is, and I think Andrew is doing a fabulous job bringing it
to people via nyx (and I wish you the best for the future.. I like
your dream), but that doesn't mean everything else has to live by
such high standards as imposed by us net-people.

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------

In <1992Sep14.163601.15895@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.145239.13719@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>>is an asymetric 1200/75 baud.
>>>Some Minitel terminals support 80x24 but there's no way around the internal
>>>modem. France Telecom plans a second generation "high-performance" terminal
>>>working at a blazing 4800 bps. Wheee.

>I'm listening, and I knew this all before. Think about it. If you try and
>make something cheaper, you cut it back. In the case of modems,
>who can type faster then 75 baud anyway. Receiveing at 1200, sending at 75.
>Makes sense (at the time).
>As for the 4800 I hadn't heard of that.

I read in comp.dcom.telecom that even if you had a v.32 modem, it's
still 1200 baud, that's all the USWest end will do.  Fooey.

>There are
>emulators free of charge out there for Mac and PC (I have them both),
>and maybe you want to program one for X?

Same article in telecom mentioned that a standard videotex emulator won't
work, it uses a customized version of the protocol.

>I reiterate: People on the net (andrew in particular) are too narrowly focused
>on the net. They have learned to live with it. Most people don't.
>Most people don't and don't have the high expectations as we do (see Prodigy).

Ok, so, applying this analogy to cars:  We here have this cool solar powered
flying cars, that fold up and go in your pocket, and they're available to
just about anyone, and much cheaper than normal cars, but the only way to
get one is to kind of stumble into the dealerships, which are mostly
unmarked and often loated inside other companies.  The rest of the world
is still driving normal cars.  Your statement, by analogy, means that since
the rest of the people don't have high expectations, we shouldn't try to
make our cool flying cars well publicized and readily available.

I disagree, too, with the notion of expectations.  "Most people" don't
have a clue what to expect when it comes to computers, bbss, etc.; they
just know what they see elsewhere.  The internet is not publicized, you
don't see it being done on TV news, so "most people" don't know it
exists, therefore they can't imagine it.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't
be given the opportunity to try it, and if they were, they'd probably
like it a whole lot better than a videotex based junkheap.

Most folks, once they find out about the internet, are like "wow, this
is great!  It's better than X" for X=prodigy, compuserve, etc.

So I disagree that it's just for us elite techfolk.

>I would like to see the net and netnews and email more widespread than
>it is, and I think Andrew is doing a fabulous job bringing it
>to people via nyx (and I wish you the best for the future.. I like
>your dream), but that doesn't mean everything else has to live by
>such high standards as imposed by us net-people.

I think they deserve it; it's our job to educate "them" on what they
could have if they wanted to.  Then let them decide.  But right now all
that gets advertised are the clunky costly systems like this directory
thing, prodigy, etc.

I will continue with my war cry of "Internet for the masses!" until
everyone has the opportunity to choose.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"