Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA01490; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:38:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:38:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612161338.IAA01490@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #662 TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 Dec 96 08:37:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 662 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: WebTV Sad Story (J.P. White) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Andy McFadden) Re: WebTV Sad Story (lr@access4.digex.net) Re: WebTV Sad Story (John Nagle) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Jered J Floyd) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Phil Leonard) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Stanley Cline) Re: WebTV Sad Story (toolbox@ibm.net) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Alan Bishop) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Mark Ashley) Re: WebTV (Not So) Sad Story (Henry Baker) Re: WebTV Musings: A User's Perspective (Leonid A. Broukhis) WebTV Upgrade Released (David Scott Lewis) Re: WebTV vs. Client and Display Technology (John R. Levine) Re: WebTV vs. Client and Display Technology (David Richards) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 08:03:04 -0800 From: JP White Reply-To: ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Organization: FFV Aerotech Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story > Craig Macbride Wrote: > It already connects to a TV set and many people already have cable TV, > so it would make sense to make the $450 box include a cable modem and > just run over the cable TV lines to a net connection. No phone line > costs; no long-distance charges; no having the phone line in use when > trying to make or receive phone calls; _much_ faster connection. > Of course, it wouldn't help if someone is outside the areas serviced by > cable TV, but that may still mean a lot more people would be covered > than they are by the WebTV ISP's local phone call areas at present. As I understand the specifications for the Sony Box, it already includes hookups for cable. The Sony Literature says, and I quote, "There's a WebTV Port connector for use with printers, cable modems and other products." I expect the reason WebTV isn't pushing the cable modem concept too hard, is the fact that many metropolitan areas (IE Nashville TN) are still without cable internet service providers, but virtually everyone has a phone line. It's early days, give them a chance! Expect to see a higher monthly rate when the cable modem does appear as an option. I doubt they'll give away the extra bandwidth, though it would be real nice if they did! The printer option I believe is not currently available either. WebTV/Sony/Magnavox will most likely clean up next Christmas with a bunch of new accessories for the WebTV. JP White Manager Information Systems FFV Aerotech Inc., Mail to : ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Web : http://www.ffvaerotech.com ------------------------------ From: fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Organization: Lipless Rattling Crankbait Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:25:43 GMT In article , Jeff Colbert wrote: > Ran a test here in Iowa. I live in a small town outside a city of 100k. > When I gave my home number it said both were toll calls, when, infact, > only one of them was. I ran a couple of other numbers for average sized > Iowa towns, one of the results gave interlata numbers, the other one > intralata numbers. All long distance. If you send me the area code and prefix I will look into the issue. We occasionally find minor errors in the CCMI database or in the way we use it, and like to get them resolved as quickly as possible. We list expensive local calls (e.g. $0.25 flat rate per call) as being non-local, which may be what you're seeing. Again, the goal is to avoid causing any surprises for the customer. Most of them don't care whether the bill comes from AT&T or the BOC, they're just concerned about what the calls cost. > I do hope that there is an option to pick your access number. In my case, > I would want to restrict access to the local number only. If it is not > available, I DO NOT want to be connected long distance automatically. The A dialog comes up before a non-local call is made. If you don't want to make the call, don't hit the button. We err on the side of caution whenever possible. > other issue, is that if someone wants to connect long distance, they > should be able to choose the number that gets them the best rates. > Oftentimes Interlata is cheaper than Intralata. We're using the actual tariff data from CCMI. I did some tests on a few phone bills and they were dead on. > System should be able to > connect initally to 800 number, list access numbers/locations, let you > choose, and then download in to flash memory/NVram. Score three out of four. There are two problems with putting a bunch of POP numbers on the screen. First and foremost, it's fine for technical folks but fairly lame for the bulk of the population who want to plug it in and then just not worry about it. The whole "it just works" concept requires hiding as much of the internal workings from the mass-market consumer as possible, without subjecting them to any nasty surprises. I think the WebTV unit has struck an excellent balance between hiding the ugly details and letting the user know what it's doing with the phone lines. Secondly, the "pick an access number" thing gets really old when POPs come and go. As another reader discovered, the WebTV access numbers are provided by other companies (there's a Concentric Network press release on the web site at http://webtv.net/, and probably something there from UUNET as well). If CNC updated their service and switched to a new access number in a particular area, the WebTV box would automatically get the update and shift, which is much nicer than sending "this number is going away, you must pick a new number now" to your 12-year-old. Similarly, if a new access point gets added that's local to users who previously had to pay toll charges, the change is transparent and immediate. (If it went the other way, they'd start getting a dialog every time the box dials.) The WebTV way of doing things is different and unfamiliar, and not without its pitfalls, but by and large it works and works well. Please understand that the purpose behind hiding information from the user is to make them comfortable around unfamiliar technology, not subject them to hidden costs. (And there I go referring to WebTV as "we". Remember, these are my opinions, not those of WebTV Networks, Inc.) fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) ------------------------------ From: lr@access4.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: 15 Dec 1996 21:23:52 GMT Craig Macbride (craig@rmit.EDU.AU) wrote: > It already connects to a TV set and many people already have cable TV, > so it would make sense to make the $450 box include a cable modem and > just run over the cable TV lines to a net connection. Of course, this would require that the cable company support this. Frankly, I'm really skeptical of this because most of the cable operators have a hard enough time delivering TV signals in a forward direction, let alone a reverse channel. Everybody has or can get a phone line. ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:35:45 GMT Thomas P. Brisco writes: > The media hype about "the web" has made me nauseous enough so > that I've not even really looked seriously at the WebTV. Is it > bidirectional? How are responses keyed in? Is advertising > splashed/attached to information sent to the screen? > I've always presumed that it did not allow for full response > capability (i.e. using the "mailto:" URL/buttons to compose replies) > and that it is Madison Avenue's way of ensuring that you have no way > to voice your objections to anything (pretty much the way TV, Radio > and Newspapers are run -- if the dictators approve, your rebuttal will > be aired). There are two remotes, a small one with arrow keys and a full keyboard. E-mail works reasonably well. It's video that works badly; it doesn't do QuickTime or AVI. We may see well see something like this built into higher-end TV sets, like a closed-caption decoder. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: jered@mit.edu (Jered J Floyd) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: 15 Dec 1996 22:40:30 GMT Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology > Alan Bishop (a@corp.webtv.net) wrote: >> - we transcode images and other media types. For example, image >> creators often make their images too detailed or store them in >> a format that doesn't compress as well as it should. We fix that >> in the proxy before transmitting them over the slow link to the user. > Just curious, does this violate copyright laws? Also, when you say an > image is "too detailed" does this mean you also resize or reduce the > number of colors of the images to make them fit on the screen? This is actually a very interesting question, which is currently being debated at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conference in Geneva. Currently under debate are three copyright treaties intended to be the first major update of international copyright law since the Berne Convention in 1971. (WIPO can be found at http://www.wipo.int/) Relevant to this topic, one of the treaties, the Treaty on Certain Questions Concerning the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, addresses the question of whether or not cached data can be a copyright infrigement. Article 10, item 10.14, paragraph 2, currently reads: Communication of a work can involve a series of acts of transmission and temporary storage, such incidental storage being a necessary feature of the communication process. If, at any point, the stored work is made available to the public, such making available constitutes a further act of communication which requires authorization. It should be noted that storage falls within the scope of the right of reproduction (see Notes on Article 7). Article 7(2) says: (2) Subject to the provisions of Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, it shall be a matter for legislation in Contracting Parties to limit the right of reproduction in cases where a temporary reproduction has the sole purpose of making the work perceptible or where the reproduction is of a transient or incidental nature, provided that such reproduction takes place in the course of use of the work that is authorized by the author or permitted by law. WebTV's transcoding is (imho) a case in which a temporary reproduction is made for the 'sole purpose of making the work perceptible', and since the documents are available publicly on the web, they are being used in the manner the author intended. This is just my interpretation, though, and I Am Not A Lawyer. I could be wrong; the wording of these treaties makes my head hurt. Additionally, another part of this treaty (I'm not sure which article offhand), can be interpreted to make carriers liable for copyright violations. For instance, if you put copyrighted information on your web page, your ISP, and possibly the telecom carriers you used, would be liable for copyright infringement. The third treaty, the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Databases would allow owners of databases to copyright non-creative works, such as facts. For instance, the NBA wants to copyright basketball game scores so that they can charge people licensing fees to distribute them. Due to many domestic objections, the U.S. recently decided to withdraw support for this treaty. (A good article be found at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,6188,00.html) Jered Floyd '98 jered@mit.edu ------------------------------ From: pleonard@cybercom.net (Phil Leonard) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:37:14 GMT In article ID , beck@slidell.com (Jeff Becklehimer) writes: > Just curious, does this violate copyright laws? Also, when you say an > image is "too detailed" does this mean you also resize or reduce the > number of colors of the images to make them fit on the screen? If they ARE violating any copyright laws then everyone of us who cache images we view on the Internet, are, as well. I know you can't easily see this with Netscape, but Internet Explorer shows you every image you ever looked at, until the cache is full and pushes the last image out to make room for the fresh ones. http://cybercom.net/~pleonard Public PGP Key @ http://cybercom.net/~pleonard/pgp.txt E12F9F8D ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:02:46 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com > BUT - this page seems to tell you what you want to hear. If you type > in 616-842-xxxx, it tells you it has a local number in the 842 > exchange. If you use 616-846 instead, it says the local number is in > 616-846! Substitute the 847 prefix, and it says the access number's > in 847, and using 844 says the local number's in 844. Unless they > have local access lines in all four of the Grand Haven, Michigan > exchanges (which I would think is rather unlikely), something is Four numbers *apparently in the same CO* is odd to say the least. Try going back to the page and entering 706-861-0000 (my prefix); the page returns 423-756-xxxx and 423-624-xxxx which, even though in a different state and area code, are local. One number is UUNet [756-3630], the other is Concentric [624-1340]. HOWEVER, if I enter 706-965-0000 (which is ALSO local to Chattanooga, but in a different telco) it says there are *no* local numbers and gives the same Chattanooga numbers above. Using other prefixes served by other non-BellSouth telcos, but still local, did the same thing. Apparently WebTV believes that different telco = long distance, which IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE! (For the 706-965 case, *even if* the numbers were LD, they'd be cheap intraLATA, interstate calls [19c/min at worst] and are often cheaper than calls to Atlanta, Knoxville, etc.) You can try going to Concentric's and web pages and look for local numbers as well. > aren't always that smart -- callers from the Holland, Michigan area are > sent to the Grand Rapids number as the toll access point, even though > Wisconsin would in most cases be a less expensive call for folks in Are you *sure*? It could be an intRALATA call which is often cheaper than intERLATA calls. > be VERY surprised when they get their phone bills. Unless the folks > at WebTV really are putting access numbers in all the exchanges where > their Web page claims that access is available, I would not be at all I'm really surprised they aren't offering 800/888 access at some cost. An 800/888 number with a large amount of inbound traffic can result in very low rates -- often lower than the caller can get! (I know of companies -- most of them inbound call centers -- that pay 7-8c/min for their 800/888 traffic; they do generate a large number of inbound calls, of course. CompuServe has charged 8c/min for 800 access -- now handled by LCI -- for some time.) Assuming a charge of 10-12c/min (average for ISPs) this is lower than most customer-side LD charges, and would *still* allow additional revenue for WebTV. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: toolbox@ibm.net Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:41:40 GMT Organization: Nut Screws and Bolts - Film at 11 Reply-To: toolbox@ibm.net Around Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:27:48 -0500, Thomas P. Brisco wrote: > Is it bidirectional? How are responses keyed in? Is advertising > splashed/attached to information sent to the screen? WebTV is essentially a very bare-bones web browser and email client. You can send email from WebTV, but it's easier if you have $60 wireless keyboard. People who email from WebTV have "@webtv.net" on their email addresses. > I've always presumed that it did not allow for full response > capability (i.e. using the "mailto:" URL/buttons to compose replies) > and that it is Madison Avenue's way of ensuring that you have no way > to voice your objections to anything (pretty much the way TV, Radio > and Newspapers are run -- if the dictators approve, your rebuttal will > be aired). Absolutely NOT TRUE! You can send email with WebTV. They even advertise this on their advertisements! I just visited my local electronics store and sent email to their customer service dept from the demo WebTV box (but the demo units are restricted to email only to WebTV customer service for obvious reasons). Alas, USENET newsgroups are not supported by WebTV. toolbox@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:00:10 PST From: Alan Bishop Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Hi. Although I'm a software engineer for WebTV networks, these are my own opinions, and I don't speak for the company in any way. beck@slidell.com (Jeff Becklehimer) writes: > Also, when you say an image is "too detailed" does this mean you also > resize or reduce the number of colors of the images to make them fit > on the screen? We resize large images so that they fit on a television screen. We translate from one image format to another. I believe that some image formats store information in a "most detailed" to "least detailed" order, which means we can algorithmically throw away detail that wouldn't show up anyway. hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) writes: > I assume that there is no way to get hardcopy out of a WebTV so who > cares about the resolution of the images. There is no printing capability today. However, we are working on it. In order to record information found on the web, some users are taping sessions on their VCRs. Thomas P. Brisco writes: > The media hype about "the web" has made me nauseous enough so that > I've not even really looked seriously at the WebTV. Is it > bidirectional? How are responses keyed in? > I've always presumed that it did not allow for full response > capability (i.e. using the "mailto:" URL/buttons to compose replies) > and that it is Madison Avenue's way of ensuring that you have no way > to voice your objections to anything (pretty much the way TV, Radio > and Newspapers are run -- if the dictators approve, your rebuttal will > be aired). There's a good chance that your local home electronics dealer has either a Sony or Philips unit set up that you can play with. It is bidirectional. The user selects the content to be displayed, using a selection box that highlights URLs, buttons, and other active areas. You can also enter URLs directly. You have three options for keying in responses. (1) You can pull up an on-screen keyboard and select keys. This is time consuming, but is suitable for some input. (2) You can get the optional wireless keyboard. (3) You can plug a standard PC keyboard into the back. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "full response capability". We provide incoming and outgoing email. You can read and post Usenet news via dejanews or other web based news services. You can fill in text areas in HTML forms and press buttons. Since you appear to be concerned about censorship, I'll describe the content screening options. You have a choice of (a) no screening, (b) SurfWatch screening, which operates off of a list of pages to reject, or (c) young child screening, which operates off of a list of pages to allow. You can select a different screening option for each of the users who share a box. Some stores have enabled screening for their demo units, but you're in control of a box that you own. alan ------------------------------ From: mark@compu.co.jp (Mark Ashley) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:21:07 GMT Organization: - CompuCo Japan Alan Bishop wrote: >> In defense of WebTV they do provide a service where you give them your >> area code and first three digits of your local number and they will >> inform you if the call is local or not. However there is catch 22, >> this service is available on their Web page, so if you havn't got Web >> access your stuck. > That's at: > http://webtv.net/HTML/home.retail.html (.net, not .com) I think that the choice of the .NET address will confuse many of the users that WebTV is trying to cater to. Many new users think every address ends with a .com, and get very confused when they see .net, mil, and other things. This happened with MSN when they first started out. They had aquired MSN.NET, but later bought MSN.COM from some company that had it. I wonder if WebTV will buy out webtv.com? ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: WebTV (Not So) Sad Story Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:15:20 GMT In article , Jack Decker wrote: > I also suspect that many of the WebTV buyers of this year will be > lining up to get a REAL computer and Internet connection next year -- > if they aren't totally turned off to the Internet by the whole WebTV > experience, that is! I disagree. I spent two hours playing with WebTV, and I think that it is ideal for a non-computer person. I know many of my computer friends who are buying them for their mothers to keep in touch with their netizen children. I do think that the keyboard is essential (the on-screen keyboard works, but is too slow for anything but typing in a few URL's). Even the manual that comes with WebTV is written in the same familiar, but incomprehensible style that all Sony consumer product manuals are written in. Luckily, you don't need to look at it very much to get going. An existing PC user will not find WebTV acceptable for any real work, but this product isn't aimed at them. I do hope that WebTV plans to offer in the near future: 1. A local disk upgrade to cache web pages. Even a few extra megabytes of local caching RAM could help a lot. 2. The new USRobotics/Rockwell 56Kbits/sec modem technology. This should help for next Xmas's sales. 3. Ethernet option for office/kiosk use. 4. Regular PC monitor option for higher-quality video -- i.e., for heavy duty users who don't care about displaying it on their TV's. Or incorporate a TV tuner and display the TV picture on the higher-quality TV monitor. 5. Some mechanism for local printing -- i.e., to a local fax machine cleverly integrated in some way with the same phone line that is used for the modem and/or a cheap external printer that doubles as a fax machine when the WebTV isn't in use. The ability to locally print email is very important, even for non-PC types. A 'fax' print of some web pages would also be useful. 6. Some ability to integrate a Connectix-style cheap camera, even if only for still shots. Grandma could send pix to her kids & vice versa. 7. WebTV email is _very_ basic -- no audio, pix or video. Some additional software work on the email system could make this really cool. Incorporate local pix/sound into the email. 8. Put in higher quality audio system for the upcoming 56Kbit/cable modems. If put under the cabinets in the kitchen, one could finally listen to RealAudio radio stations all day long, instead of the drivel that comes out of the AM/FM dial. 9. Incorporate a cordless phone into the unit, so that you don't have to run a phone wire over to the TV. In some houses, this could be a real pain. You also get a cordless phone out of the bargain. Alternatively, utilize some sort of household wiring to carry the bits. [WebTV: email me, and I'll tell you where to send the consulting check. ;-)] ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: WebTV Musings: A User's Perspective Date: 15 Dec 1996 23:37:21 -0800 Organization: BEST Internet Communications From my point of view, WebTV is little more than a toy without a printer interface. What worth is receiving e-mail if you cannot print it; what worth is browsing the Net if you cannot print a single line of information you need to save for later perusal? Judging by www.webtv.net, they don't address the issue now and do not provide any info on supporting printer interface in future. Leo ------------------------------ From: David Scott Lewis Subject: WebTV Upgrade Released Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:47:52 -0800 Organization: Strategies & Technologies, Inc. (STI) WebTV just implemented an upgrade that subscribers should know about. First, RealAudio has been added. That's one step in the right direction. I hope support for Shockwave, PDF, QuickTime, QuickTimeVR, and frames aren't too far behind. BTW, until this Web spoofing stuff can be resolved, WebTV should stay away from adding support for JavaScript or ActiveX. Second, they've added background music. The music seems to repeat after an hour or so, but it's pretty good. What they need to do is to support viewer selection of a musical genre. Personally, I like The Music of Cyberspace series. Third, they've made it possible to switch users without logging off and logging on again. There were a few other additions, such as checking for e-mail even when the unit is off, but the above are the main upgrade features. BTW, it was totally painless to add the upgrades. It took about 10 minutes, but it was a simple click on the remote control. That's it! WebTV, albeit a consumer product, is the best example of why NCs are needed: Ease of maintenance! No more goofy Microsoft Windows functions, like logging off by hitting the "Start" icon (boy, wasn't that intuitive!). For your enjoyment, here are four useful URLs (each is an article): http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,6043,00.html http://www.packet.com/schrage/today.html (this one, because it ends with "today.html" may not last for long!) http://techweb.cmp.com:80/ng/nov96/fcompare.htm http://www.nytimes.com/web/docsroot/library/cyber/techcol/1202techcol.html For a pointer, go to: http://users.visi.net/~cwt/tv-inet.html David Scott Lewis thewebguy@acm.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Dec 96 11:14 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: WebTV vs. Client and Display Technology Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > limitation of the current WebTV unit. No matter how many tricks you > play with direct video out and S-video interfaces, the bandwidth of > conventional North American NTSC (or PAL/SECAM for that matter) > televisions makes them generally unsuitable for displaying significant > amounts of text. That's what I thought, too. They do some tricky patented thing, and the text looks about three times better than I would have thought NTSC could do. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it in person. I visited some of my own text-heavy pages, and they were quite legible. In the longer run, WebTV encourages page authors to produce customized versions of pages to serve up when a webTV request comes in, with smaller pages and more TV-friendly colors and layout. If they get their critical mass, I suspect this will happen, since a surprising number of sites already have different Netscape versions for frames and non-frames clients and the like. It ain't a Pentium with a super-VGA, but for $300, it's pretty impressive. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: WebTV vs. Client and Display Technology Date: 15 Dec 1996 21:42:44 GMT Organization: Ripco Communications Inc. In article , Lauren Weinstein wrote: >> That's what I thought, too. They do some tricky patented thing, and >> the text looks about three times better than I would have thought NTSC >> could do. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it in person. I >> visited some of my own text-heavy pages, and they were quite legible. > I went and looked at it on several hookups (video and s-video) and > wasn't impressed at all. I saw typical NTSC crawl around edges, and > the flicker was very annoying to stare at, especially on typical pages > with heavy white background content. S-video naturally looks better > than video, but only relatively, and only high-end TVs typically > even have an s-video hookup. I stopped to play with one today in Circuit City, and it looked good _for_a_television_set_. S-Video makes a big difference on text, but I doubt I'd want it as my primary web browser. >> In the longer run, WebTV encourages page authors to produce customized >> versions of pages to serve up when a webTV request comes in, with >> smaller pages and more TV-friendly colors and layout. If they get >> their critical mass, I suspect this will happen, since a surprising >> number of sites already have different Netscape versions for frames >> and non-frames clients and the like. Actually, I found it rather annoying that my pages came up with a white background -- I didn't check if it lets you set a background color, I'd hope so -- basic black is much easier on the eyes. FYI, WebTV identifies itself as: Mozilla/1.22 WebTV/1.0 (compatible; MSIE 2.0) >> It ain't a Pentium with a super-VGA, but for $300, it's pretty impressive. > Only because (in my opinion) there hasn't been anything like it before and > the "gee-whiz" quotient is very high. I still suspect it will quickly > become another box sitting in the closet unused as users who get tired of > the net just turn it off and the ones who care move on to conventional > systems with more power, flexibiility, ISP choices, etc. Or even the unconventional Sega Saturn based browser, which supposedly looks as good, lets you choose any PPP provider, and when you're sick of the web, you can pop in a game or even a music CD. David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased dr@ripco.com (312) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #662 ******************************