[8720] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: future needs of the internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rose Marie Holt)
Wed Dec 1 15:15:03 1993
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 12:04:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Rose Marie Holt <rmholt@u.washington.edu>
To: "Dick St.Peters" <stpeters@spare-parts.crd.ge.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9311302012.AA01773@spare-parts.crd.Ge.Com>
On Tue, 30 Nov 1993, Dick St.Peters wrote:
>
> > From: Rose Marie Holt <rmholt@u.washington.edu>
>
> > My question is - How many terminals do you all think will be needed at
> > next yeaer's meeting, taking into account growth of the net use by
> > private and academic physicians and by the pending boom in
> > teleradiology. I'm betting forty.
> >
>
> Rose Marie,
>
> I was at RSNA last year and at Interop, a huge networking conference,
> this year. Interop is in the same league as RSNA in size. They had
> quite a few Internet terminals, about 75 I would guess, and most of the
> time I was able to find one vacant without waiting. That suggest that
> unless physicians really take to networking, 40 terminals is a pretty
> good guess.
>
Actually we have 8 terminals (I didnt see one batch) and usage is
increasing. If faxing becomes available over the net, and if more folks
get email, that alone should really expand usage. Realistically, I doubt
teleradiology between the conference and phhysicians workplace or even
between companies and their outposts at the conference would receive
limited use. Although, if it were available I can imagine it would be
used - for that last minute slide, for demos, etc.
> My impression of physicians is that they fall more or less into three
> groups, those who get personally interested in things like networking,
> those who believe there's value to it but want techs to handle it for
> them, and those who are skeptical/hostile. Of course, these "groups"
> are more like markers on a spectrum, with physicians distributed all
> along it. Do you think many of your physician colleagues are going to
> drift toward doing networking themselves?
Well, Im currently at a University, and everyone is drifting toward the
net (maybe it should be called the gillnet, since it catches everyone,
even those unintended?!). At the private practice I am joining, they are
not even interested in teleradiology on call, BUT if business picks up,
and costs go down, interest will increase astronomically, even in the >50
year old partners and even more so in the other new group member - a
computer and net-fluent gentleman. I saw a teleradiology system
yesterday by a company that markets directly and to a big company (GE,
maybe) that had me drooling, but the 40K for film digitizer and
transmission equipment and one terminal was steep.
Another innovation here is an electronic smart card we use to 1)
electonically solicit info from companies. 2)record our iattendance and
3)record credit for looking over posters for educational benefit. I
think radiologists in particular will adapt to electronic communication
innovation from intrinsic interest in the latest gizmos and from the
benefits of lit searching , communication, and relief on call that may
be realized.
>
> As a person who works on teleradiology, the question is of more than
> intellectual interest to me.
>
> --
RM Holt
