Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:32:13 -0500
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: US West Offers Minitel-Style Directory Assistance
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 702, Message 9 of 9

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.

I agree with you that the pricing is odd.

The following three objections are all part of the same idea:

> 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.)

> 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 ...

> Reason #5: Limited access.  How are folks in LA going to look up my
> phone number in Denver?  They can telnet or dial into our public
> library card catalog for free, mind you.  [telnet pac.carl.org]
 
> My recommendations are:

> 2) Use modern methods of connection, such as telnet or a simple
>    dialup; or use X.  If you want to offer videotex, offer the others
>    first.

    Why not use X?  Well, X requires at least a 14400 connection, and
really needs 56000.  Not too many users have that.  X is also an
high-end communications format, found mainly on expensive
workstations.  Getting X running on your average PC would cost users
$100-200 (plus the cost of whatever communications link you use).
I've never seen a freely distributable X program for a personal
computer.

    Why not have telnet access?  Well, about 0.1% of the general
population has telnet access.  (PSI charges me $39/month for 2400
telnet access.  14400 access would cost much more) It would cost a lot
to establish telnet access, and almost no one could use it.

    Why are you so confident that LA users won't be able to check
Colo.  phone numbers?  Right now, I can use Minitel to check French
phone numbers (at $.17/minute) from the US, so I presume US West can
have the same kind of connectivity.

    I'm amused when you describe the minitel foramt as "Another
Propietary Program."  In fact, the protocol is publicly available.  In
fact, there are freely-distributable minitel programs floating around
(check the telecom archives).  In fact, many Mac terminal programs
provide Minitel emulation as a standard mode (eg, Smartcom).

    The advantages of videotex are: 

    - there are free videotex programs for most personal computers.

    - it works well with 1200 or 2400 modems (which is all the vast
      majority of the public have)

    - it works with a dial-up phone line, and does not require a 
      special connection to Internet, found only in universities and
      a few companies.

    - The videotex format is easier to read than a straight text
      format.  (Have you actually used Minitel?)  Most BBS's use
      ANSI-PC emulation in preference to straight vt100 (ANSI-PC
      provides color and the use of IBM graphics characters).  I
      think the BBS experience is a good referendum on whether
      most users "prefer" straight text or graphics.