nanog mailing list archives
RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again?
From: Jeff Harper <jharper () verizon com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:46:36 -0500
The great unwashed masses don't necessarily stick with the time honored definitions we would prefer that they admire, respect, and accept as gospel. Get over it!
Well, in my opinion, networking is an exact science, it's very binary, and the definitions must follow suit. It has to be. Chaos would erupt if it wasn't, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria! -- Jeff http://www.mp3.com/intervox
Current thread:
- Broadband v. baseband ... again? Roeland Meyer (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Miles Fidelman (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Christopher B. Zydel (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Dennis Dayman (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Christopher B. Zydel (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Tom Lettington (Jul 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Roeland Meyer (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Richard A. Steenbergen (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Roeland Meyer (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Jeff Harper (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 05)
- RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Tom Walton (Jul 05)
- Re: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Miles Fidelman (Jul 05)