RE: Voice Economics

Lisa Lippert (lisal@exchange.microsoft.com)
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:28:58 -0700


This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF954.5F27C605
Content-Type: text/plain

You've mis-stated my arguments. The telephone works fine because full
sound IS sufficient for human conversation, even though you can't see
human expressions. Note that this is already a somewhat degraded
conversation from the face-to-face kind, but one people are willing to
put up with when face-to-face discussions are difficult or impossible.

My argument was only that half-duplex makes the conversation even more
difficult than full-duplex. It is not a free optimization -- it has a
cost in terms of difficulty of keeping up a polite non-scripted
conversation. I'm sure some people are willing to put up with the high
degradation in order to get "free" internet phone functionality. I
claim that half-duplex is not as good as full-duplex for most
conversations, even polite conversations.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Alan Bolcer [SMTP:gbolcer@gambetta.ICS.uci.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 2:43 PM
> To: Tom Whore
> Cc: FoRK@xent.ICS.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: Voice Economics
>
> > Half duplex is a monologue
> > full duplex is a conversation
> >
> > But still and all, voice alone is only a fraction of how and what
> we
> > communicate, or better put it is just one tool we use to express
> > ourselves, most times with out knowing we are using those tools at
> all.
> > Facial ticks, breathing, eye motion, finger twitches.
> >
> > There is still a very long way to go until full-humanplex
> communications
> > are realized over the lines, data or voice.
>
> Sure, but if I believe Lisa's arguements, the telephone would
> never have been invented because you couldn't communicated because
> you can't see facial expressions. My point was solely, sure you
> need those things to communicate, but at what cost? Does every
> single conversation have to include those things? What type of
> support do you need for 1/2 the time?
>
> How does the average person decide whether to write a letter, pick up
> the phone, send an email, etc. With digital media you can now
> broadcast, multicast, pointcast, etc, not everybody needs to do
> everything. What dollar premium are you willing to pay to handle
> full-humanplex communications and do you need it all the time?
>
> Greg
>

------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF954.5F27C605
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
RE: Voice Economics

You've mis-stated my = arguments.  The telephone works fine because full sound IS = sufficient for human conversation, even though you can't see human = expressions.  Note that this is already a somewhat degraded = conversation from the face-to-face kind, but one people are willing to = put up with when face-to-face discussions are difficult or = impossible.

My argument was only = that half-duplex makes the conversation even more difficult than = full-duplex.  It is not a free optimization -- it has a cost in = terms of difficulty of keeping up a polite non-scripted = conversation.  I'm sure some people are willing to put up with the = high degradation in order to get "free" internet phone = functionality.  I claim that half-duplex is not as good as = full-duplex for most conversations, even polite = conversations.

Lisa

------ =_NextPart_001_01BDF954.5F27C605--