------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF862.7BE1256D
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Studies of how people communicate show that overlapping (full-duplex) is
necessary. I'm pretty sure it was in Deborah Tannen's book "You Just
Don't Understand" that I read about this. It's a good book; Tannen's a
sociolinguist, not a pop psychologist.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345372050/forkrecommendedrA/
Anyway, studies have shown that much of the meta-communication that goes
on in a conversation goes on during those short periods where voice
overlaps. Let's say you're explaining a difficult concept to me over a
half-duplex connection. How do you know when to stop explaining? How
do you know when to go into more detail? You could just go on and on --
how could I say "OK I understand that concept, but what about this?" In
a full-duplex voice-only conversation, I would sprinkle an encouraging
"mm-hmm" or discouraging "uhh...", while you are talking, as a cue to
you to know whether I am understanding.
Also, studies show that when a conversation moves from one person
talking to another person talking, this happens seamlessly -- with
overlap. Let's say I want to speak, but you're talking right now. In a
phone conversation, I would say "OK" somewhere more-or-less between your
words as a cue that I have something to say. (If we were face-to-face,
I would use body cues too, but it works without body cues over the
phone) As a further cue, during the last word or two of your next
sentence, I would say "I see". If you get these cues and decide to
pause for long enough, I can start speaking without interrupting you.
The neat thing is that even though I said some things while you were
speaking, nobody perceives them as interruptions, because they didn't
prevent you from continuing speaking if you wanted to. In fact, if you
did continue speaking indefinitely while I continued giving these cues
that I wanted to speak, pretty soon a third party in the conversation
would see that you were dominating the conversation and not giving me a
chance to speak when I obviously wanted to.
I've participated in some half-duplex conversations -- you can use
NetMeeting, with or without video, and unless you have a special sound
card or some hardware, it's half-duplex. They're pretty annoying. It's
hard enough over full-duplex, without the body cues, to know when
somebody wants to speak, even when everybody is being polite and nobody
"interrupts".
Lisa
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Alan Bolcer [SMTP:gbolcer@gambetta.ICS.uci.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 9:45 PM
> To: FoRK@xent.ICS.uci.edu
> Subject: Voice Economics
>
> Voice is expensive. You look at the cost
> to support 2000 minutes per month and you will
> understand. When you think about it though,
> how many of those minutes are spent in dramatic
> pause? People speak in half-duplex, why does
> voice need to be full-duplex anyways? We as a culture
> have become conditioned to need to speak over each
> other and interrrupt each other. Speaking over
> each other is useful in face-to-face, but does it
> really need to happen over digital sound? The reason
> VOIP is so hard is that last little and extra mile
> of supporting the 3% of conversation that overlaps.
>
> Art Hitomi bought an Nextel i1000 today. One of
> the features that I was skeptical about until I got
> home and found the ad stuffed in my mailbox was that
> it supplies a 2-way radio good for most of souther California.
> Similar to how instant messaging combined the
> timeliness of of chat with the usefulness of text
> and routing, radio has the potential to provide most
> of what we use phones for, but at a fraction of the
> cost.
>
> Imagine a phone conversation where only one person
> was allowed to speak at a tiem. Is that a restriction
> you could live with in some situations? Now imagine
> that you only are charged for the on air time
> that you actually speak. Imagine also that the time
> you speak can be compressed and delay sent and
> instanly received and de-compressed. All of
> a suddent you have a near-free communication mechanism without
> having to pay for the luxury of speaking and interrupting someone.
> This seems to work for most cases of communication (I assume
> with the exception of phone sex). Now, imagine a
> conference call where the voice gets multi-casted
> to all listening participants.
>
> I think that the economics of telephone communications
> is going to change radically. The process went from
> focusing on the phone, to selling the service and giving
> away the phone, and now to absolute billing. I am
> starting to see the benefit to the consumer for
> per-packet billing.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF862.7BE1256D
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Studies of how = people communicate show that overlapping (full-duplex) is = necessary. I'm pretty sure it was in Deborah Tannen's book = "You Just Don't Understand" that I read about this. = It's a good book; Tannen's a sociolinguist, not a pop = psychologist.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345372050/= forkrecommendedrA/ =
Anyway, studies have = shown that much of the meta-communication that goes on in a = conversation goes on during those short periods where voice = overlaps. Let's say you're explaining a difficult concept to me = over a half-duplex connection. How do you know when to stop = explaining? How do you know when to go into more detail? = You could just go on and on -- how could I say "OK I understand = that concept, but what about this?" In a full-duplex = voice-only conversation, I would sprinkle an encouraging = "mm-hmm" or discouraging "uhh...", while you are = talking, as a cue to you to know whether I am understanding. =
Also, studies show = that when a conversation moves from one person talking to another = person talking, this happens seamlessly -- with overlap. Let's = say I want to speak, but you're talking right now. In a phone = conversation, I would say "OK" somewhere more-or-less between = your words as a cue that I have something to say. (If we were = face-to-face, I would use body cues too, but it works without body cues = over the phone) As a further cue, during the last word or two of = your next sentence, I would say "I see". If you get = these cues and decide to pause for long enough, I can start = speaking without interrupting you. The neat thing is that even = though I said some things while you were speaking, nobody perceives = them as interruptions, because they didn't prevent you from continuing = speaking if you wanted to. In fact, if you did continue speaking = indefinitely while I continued giving these cues that I wanted to = speak, pretty soon a third party in the conversation would see that you = were dominating the conversation and not giving me a chance to speak = when I obviously wanted to.
I've participated in = some half-duplex conversations -- you can use NetMeeting, with or = without video, and unless you have a special sound card or some = hardware, it's half-duplex. They're pretty annoying. It's = hard enough over full-duplex, without the body cues, to know when = somebody wants to speak, even when everybody is being polite and nobody = "interrupts".
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Alan Bolcer =
[SMTP:gbolcer@gambetta.ICS.uci.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 9:45 PM
To: FoRK@xent.ICS.uci.edu
Subject: =
Voice Economics
Voice is expensive. You look at =
the cost
to support 2000 minutes per month and =
you will
understand. When you think =
about it though,
how many of those minutes are spent =
in dramatic
pause? People speak in =
half-duplex, why does
voice need to be full-duplex =
anyways? We as a culture
have become conditioned to need to =
speak over each
other and interrrupt each =
other. Speaking over
each other is useful in face-to-face, =
but does it
really need to happen over digital =
sound? The reason
VOIP is so hard is that last little =
and extra mile
of supporting the 3% of conversation =
that overlaps.
Art Hitomi bought an Nextel i1000 =
today. One of
the features that I was skeptical =
about until I got
home and found the ad stuffed in my =
mailbox was that
it supplies a 2-way radio good for =
most of souther California.
Similar to how instant messaging =
combined the
timeliness of of chat with the =
usefulness of text
and routing, radio has the potential =
to provide most
of what we use phones for, but at a =
fraction of the
cost.
Imagine a phone conversation where =
only one person
was allowed to speak at a tiem. =
Is that a restriction
you could live with in some =
situations? Now imagine
that you only are charged for the on =
air time
that you actually speak. =
Imagine also that the time
you speak can be compressed and delay =
sent and
instanly received and =
de-compressed. All of
a suddent you have a near-free =
communication mechanism without
having to pay for the luxury of =
speaking and interrupting someone.
This seems to work for most cases of =
communication (I assume
with the exception of phone =
sex). Now, imagine a
conference call where the voice gets =
multi-casted
to all listening participants. =
I think that the economics of =
telephone communications
is going to change radically. =
The process went from
focusing on the phone, to selling the =
service and giving
away the phone, and now to absolute =
billing. I am
starting to see the benefit to the =
consumer for
per-packet billing.
Greg