Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Bandwith
From: Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:29:45 -0800
References: <3A24A1E7.D79B2CE7@primus.com.au> <B646FAF1.36D%imxputs@knoware.nl> <3A24A1E7.D79B2CE7@primus.com.au>

At 09:49 AM 11/29/00 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>>The reference is to the term Bandwidth.  The context in which this is used is
>>wrong.
>>
>>Bandwidth has nothing to do with the length of a message. A message of 2 hour
>>length uses no more bandwidth, than a message of one second.
>>
>>Bandwidth has to do only with the actual speed a message is send. If a
message
>>is send with  a speed of 300 baud, then the bandwidth is less than 
>>if a speed of
>>1200 baud is used.
>

Actually, in this RF & ether age, "Bandwidth" has taken on the meaning of
"VOLUME" which does not necessarily relate to actual moving speed, ie, 1200
baud vs 2400 baud. Think of it like water in pipes. Pump up the pressure,
make the water go faster, you do indeed get greater bandwidth, that is, the
delivered volume is greater. Also, by making the pipe fatter, or adding
multiple pipes, yet keeping the same flow rate, the delivered volume is
greater.

ISDN is made up of two 64KB data lines. Quite often only one is used. If
there is a backlog of data to be sent, the other line will kick in. The
data is still being sent at 64KB/sec but there is twice as much of it
getting through. More bandwidth.

So in reality, long message use up bandwidth as they require volume.

Jim

Replies: Reply from "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Bandwith)
In reply to: Message from "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au> ([Leica] Bandwith)
Message from imx <imxputs@knoware.nl> ([Leica] Age and style)
Message from "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au> ([Leica] Bandwith)