|Data transmission has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated Start-class)|
Asynch vs. synch
The asynchronous versus synchronous communication discussion seems misdleading --- it talks about special cases of general ideas as if they are the only cases. Asynchronous communication is not necessarily controlled by start and stop bits, and the section is written as though all asynch comm. is 8 bit serial. The comments on clock skew in the synchronous comm discussion are also misleading as not all --- in fact, little --- synchronous communication suffers from skew-related data corruption. I would fix this myself except that I tend to be too wordy for short sections. Zack112358 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support but both articles are appallingly sketchy! --Wtshymanski 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me that What is the maximum speed of data transfer can be supported by copper?
- not the speed of light.
Do you mean the minimum rise time for a digital bit to transmit across a copper wire, or the maximum number of bits you can get through in a given amount of time?HatlessAtless (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
However this method ohg, as there is more interference between many wires than between one.
Could somebody please tell me what ohg is meant to mean?
- It came from edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data_transmission&diff=84946893&oldid=84621944 .
- I can't figure it out either, so I'm reverting that sentence.
- Fixed. --22.214.171.124 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the part about interference on parallel data transmission as it isn't very accurate and have replaced it with a more accurate substitute (skewing) which is what i believe the original author was trying to explain but didn't know the correct terminology. dc141 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge to Digital communications
I also oppose the merge to Digital communications; I agree with the previous post but there are more reasons to oppose this merge. There are three types of information that we communicate: data, voice, and video. Long distance voice communications were taking advantage of the conversion from analog to digital (definitely in the realm of digital communications) when data communications (between computers) was still in its infancy. Furthermore, "transmission" is only one piece of "communications". The OSI seven layer model illustrates this, as only the lower four layers of the model relate to transmission. The upper three layers (making sure the formatting is compatible, that the sender is allowed to send to the receiver, etc.) are just as essential to successful communication as is the transmission portion. Both the "data" and the "transmission" halves of "data transmission" are subsets of digital communications. Techgeek830 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Does the first post imply that Digital communications does not involve Digital modulation methods (i.e. digital communication over analog media)? That is wrong. Mange01 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Arguments for a merge: A text book on data transmission and one on digital communication typically involves the same chapters, including multiple access, error control, digital modulation, line coding, data compression, cryptography etc. So both includes layer 6 - the presentation layer. None of them would include routing, process-to-process communication, etc (layer 3, 4 and 5), which would be covered in a book on "data communication" or "computer networks". Anyway, even if there is no support of a merge, the relation between these topics should be clarified in the article. Mange01 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A better solution?
The problem here is not what is or isn't covered by a text book in the field, but with oversimplification of the words in the English language. "Data" may refer to digital data most often, but is not used exclusively to describe digital data. Considering that these articles are often translated in other languages, perhaps a better solution is to make this an overview article or a disambiguation page branching to two separate articles titled: Data transmission (analog) and Data transmission (digital).
- Passband and baseband data transmission (=passband and baseband digital transmission) are more common terms. Mange01 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I oppose merging Information Transmission with Data Transmission. First, Data is not necessarily Information. Data is a very specific form of information, sans context. Information transmission has a wider context than is presented in this entry. Information Transmission relates to a wider social context than this entry implies. Data Transmission could me a Narrower form of Information Transmission. But Data Transmission is not the same as Information Transmission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that it's a redirect and not a merge request. Was there an article for Information Transmission that was deleted? Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. But without an article for Information Transmission, I don't know what it would point to.
- Data is actually broader in scope than information. All information is data, but not all data is information. Unless you are using the narrower scope of data which erroneously narrows the scope to digital data. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
the main major betwen asynchronous and synchronous be the converter factor from analoge
‡Signal Over Time