[e2e] Re: evolution of bandwidth as a term

Cannara cannara at attglobal.net
Fri Oct 3 10:50:06 PDT 2003

Hear, hear!  The really odd thing is as you say in your last sentence, Nitin. 
What is it all about?  Perhaps some folks feel embarrassed knowing that their
prior publications have black & white evidence of their transgression?  Maybe
if we all agree to get off the misuse drug, we can also simply agree to
forgive & forget too.  :]


"Nitin H. Vaidya" wrote:
>   >> I've tried a number of possibilities out in my mind, and the one I like best
>   >> is "band-size", which I think is better than "frequespan" (and not just
>   >> because I suggested it :-). It's euphonious, to-the-point, and says just what
>   >> it means - the size of the frequency range (band). What do you think?
> Band-size is unlikely to fly (I certainly hope it doesn't).
> The community that uses "bandwidth" in the *correct* manner is
> unlikely to give up that perfectly reasonable terminology for something
> new like band-size.
> I am guilty of occasional (I hope -:) misuse myself, but that
> does not make it right. The distinction is important enough that
> different words be used to emphasize the distinction (bandwidth
> and bitrate should do).
> I can perhaps understand arguments condoning the misuse (given that
> such misuse is not unique to bandwidth, and that context often helps
> disambiguate), but I cannot understand arguments that oppose trying to
> correct the misuse.
> - nitin

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list