🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov22.053204.3104@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu
(Henry Spencer) writes, regarding the future of _cheap_ cellular phones:

>Remember how it was said that everyone would have Picturephones by now?
>Things don't get cheap without substantial demand *first*.

Agreed and disagreed.  The popularity of cellular phones, in spite of their
current price (it _is_ becoming a major electronics market), suggests that
cheaper Cphones will be even more widely popular -- the demand appears to
be there.

Picturephones are a lousy counterexample, on account of because 1) they aren't
that much of an improvement over audio-only, 2) they're too unreasonably ex-
pensive, even given significant development (though this _could_ change),
3) most people aren't interested in the frame-every-few-seconds that the cur-
rent technology supports and 4) the 'phone system can't handle the BW neces-
ary for a faster frame-transfer.  Additionally, most people would then find it
inconvenient, if not embarassing, to use the 'phone in the nude.

There are some caveats:  If cable TV can do it, so can The Phone Company.
Coaxial cable _does_ have the BW necessary for videophone hookups.  Ideally,
you cross the cable company with the phone company, producing an integrated
communications utility.  This would have to be standardized to work effec-
tively on a worldwide basis, which means either a worldwide monopoly or co-
operation between the industry and the worlds governments.  It is left as an
excercise for the student to decide which is the more likely and which is the
more desireable. (Vote NO!)

Too, new image processing technology does greatly reduce the effective BW 
required for a videophone system.  Still, for an effective frame transfer
rate, you need quite a few more BPS than the current phony system permits.

And, if you Go Cable, you still need the equivalent of the telephone network
switching system...working with _HOW_ many MHz bandwidth?

Additionally, if we accept the several-seconds-per-frame limitation, you still
can do _some_ image transfers; you just have to be willing to spend the time
necessary.  Now, consider the popularity of FAX technologies, in spite of the
several-hundred-bucks minimum ante.

True, there has to be _some_ demand.  It looks to me like there's plenty of
demand for very cheap, very portable cellular 'phones.  I'm still working on
a design that'll work 400 feet underground in a VERY muddy cave passage....

One essentiality for this is the ability to turn it OFF.  When I first got a
phone of my own, circa 1970, one of the first things I did was open it up and
put a disable switch on the ringer.  It worked fine, except I'd forget to turn
it back on occasionally.  Again, modern technology is there to help.  Consider
the popularity of answering machines today.

With all these New Things, there's always a psycho-sociological barrier to
overcome.  Answering machines were widely hated at first, by folks who were
too insecure to "talk to a damn machine."  De gustibus....

Widespread use of car-based telephones was -- and still is, in some quarters
-- regarded as too dangerous, too likely to cause accidents.  I'm sure it
does contribute to the accident rate, but people have begun to accept it. Hams
and CBers have been doing this sort of thing for years...not much problem.

							d


--
		"I purr, therefore I am."     -- Rene Decates
      Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu