HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hobbes@den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Compudyne 2400e:  Help with power supply needed
Summary: need transformer for 2400 junker modem
Keywords: modem, compudyne, power, transformer
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:00:03 GMT
Organization: Denver, Colorado


Help!

I picked up a Compudyne 2400e modem from CompUSA (Denver) on Saturday.
$20.  I realized then that I might have wasted $20.  Oh well. 

Background:
Anyways, the unit was the old Compudyne 2400 baud external modem.
It had a cheap plastic case, was about 5" x 5" x 1.5".  A single 
breadboard inside.  No manufacture name or other info on bread board
or anywhere else.  Has a single female power jack on the back labeled
8.5 VAC.  

I went back to the store to look at the new Compudyne 2400e modem.  Seems
to be from a different manufacturer.  It also used an 8.5 VAC transformer.
The transformer was from Databyte in Arcadia, CA.  The transformer
supplied 1.35A of current.  I contacted Databyte, and a salesman said
he would send me a quantity of one, but I have to send them a check, they
won't do a credit card transaction.

Questions:
1)  Does anyone know of an electronics distributor/company that would sell
me an 8.5 VAC / 1.35 Amp electronic transformer with a single male jack
mail order / credit card?

2)  Does anyone have a Compudyne 2400e modem?  (The old kind)  Could you
please email me the information about the transformer.  Description/model
number etc ought to be printed on the transformer.  Also, would you
be willing to send me photocopy of manual, or fax it to me?  or at least
any technical specifications Compudyne may have included?  Contact me 
via email at hobbes@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com.

3)  Does anyone know who OEM'd these modems to Compudyne (aka CompUSA)?

Oh, BTW, IMHO, CompUSA tech support was very UNHELPFUL.  Either they 
couldn't help, didn't know how, or were unwilling... so beware if you
get something from the.  Software, cables, disks ok.  Hardware I'd be
careful from dealing with them.  A reputable small clone shop in your
local city might be a better place.

Thanks to anyone who replies.

steve camp
hobbes@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: harlan@netcom.com (Harlan Lau)
Subject: Internal vs External modem peerformance
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 21:59:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: comp.dcom.modems

Is there any performance advantage for internal modems over
external versions of the same modem?

Aren't external modems in some cases limited by the speed/type
of the  uart on the serial line, which might not allow them utilize
their full potential.

I used Microsoft`s MSD utility to establish that my Gateway PC has
8250 uart's on it's serial ports. Rather than upgrading to the 16550
uart's it seems easier to get the internal version of the modem.
No lights but no external power supply and case either.

Is there any reason to get an external modem other than being able
to see the lights and being able to share the modem with other
PCs?

Thanks.

Harlan Lau
harlan@rambus.com

-- 
Harlan Lau
UUCP: harlan@rambus.com
USPS: Rambus Inc., 2465 Latham St, Mountain View, CA 94040, 415-903-3895
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11046 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:20172
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 14,400 bps:  Does any comm software support it?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:46:45 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Jul23.122353.18296@bnr.ca> richard@bnr.ca (Richard A. Dault) writes:
> In article <csjohn.711865104@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (Bullwinkle) writes:
> >
> >I will be getting a 14,400 bps v.32/v.32bis/v.42/v.42bis
> >fax/modem soon.  I have noticed that on all of the MSDOS
> >and OS/2 communications software that I have seen there is
> >no setting for 14,400 bps, although there is for 9600 bps and
> >19,200 bps.   Is there any way to access the 14,400 bps
> >speed, or am I stuck at 9600 bps for now?  Is there any software
> >out there that supports 14,400 bps?  Thanks. 
> 
> No communication programs have a 14.4K baud setting.
> 
> You set the comm speed to 19.2K baud for regular communication, or you set
> it to 38.2K baud when using data compression.  I always set mine to 38.2K
> baud and when calling somewhere and the 'auto-detect' will slow it down if
> necessary.
> I use telix 3.15, you can set the comm speed to 38.2K baud.

You should set it to 57,600 if you have a 14.4-capable modem with V.42bis.

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: shmuel@moe.einstein.com (Shmuel Einstein)
Subject: PPI 14400FXSAV.32bis Modem Result Code Problem
Organization: Shmuel Einstein & Associates, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:58:41 GMT

I have noticed that the command ATQ2 does not work on my PPI 14400FX ... modem.
This command is supposed to disable result codes for answer modes, yet enable
them for originating calls.  For unix based systems, this is nice, because getty
then is not confused by the RING, CONNECT, etc. messages, but the modem can still
be used normally for outgoing calls by uucp which dialog with the result codes.

Anyway, it seems that the ATQ2 command just turns off result codes entirely, just
as does the ATQ1 command.  I reported this problem to PPI today, and they're
"going to get back to me."

Has anyone else experienced this?  If so, do you have suggestions for corrective
action or workaround?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Shmuel Einstein, shmuel@einstein.com
Shmuel Einstein & Associates, Inc.
9100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 235 E
Beverly Hills, CA  90212
310/273-8971 FAX 310/273-8872
From: zeke@fasttech.uucp (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Boom! Our lawyer are tougher thay your lawyers. You're Dead.
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:07:34 GMT
Organization: Fast Technology

In <ldnm90n.gerg@netcom.com> gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews) writes:

>>Good modem manufactureres like Telebit and USR pay Hayes, so you don't
>>have to worry about it.

>Royalties for patents often are collected on a per-unit basis,
>so simple economics could make a modem manufacturer decide to eliminate
>the royalty payment in new products.  I.e., they would switch to the TIES
>escape sequence.

>The WorldBlazer uses TIES.

This is great. I think Telebit made the right decision for their market.

Don't pay even one cent of tribute to the Pirates of Atlanta!
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rbt@tous.oau.org (Robert B. Tate)
Subject: Re: How do you increase uucico's timeout period for WorldBlazer modem?
Summary: good idea
Organization: Tate Enterprises
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.171051.20929@jr.rhein-main.de> joachim@jr.rhein-main.de (Joachim Riedel) writes:
>rbt@tous.oau.org (Robert B. Tate) writes:
>> ### PEP, uucp spoofing, no compression (for calling WB w/PEP tones last)
>> wbpepS	=W-,	"" AATZ OK ATx1v1q0e1s59=15s0=0s7=80s50=255s94=2s111=30s180=0s181=1s190=0DTW\T\r\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\d\c CONNECT\sFAST "" UUCP
>
>
>I got a hint from a friend. Now I use just    FAST-\c-FAST in the Dialers-File.
>Works fine.

Good idea! I hadn't thought of that one.

>
>PS: Taylor-UUCP offers better configuration ;-))   chat-timeout for example.
>

Once you decypher how to setup the config files. I am still trying! I
will be really glad when the manuals catch up with the software. (One
thing they could use is good examples). Thats one of the problems with
really powerfull software, there are so many options, etc. that it is
hard to understand all that it can do (but I will :) !


-- 
 rbt@tous.OAU.ORG  (Robert B. Tate)       | A little knowledge is a dangerous
 {ucf-cs,peora,tarpit}!tous!rbt           | thing. Any less can kill you.
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11286 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:20434
From: layes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Jonathan Layes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 14,400 bps:  Does any comm software support it?
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:29:44 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Jul23.122353.18296@bnr.ca> richard@bnr.ca (Richard A. Dault) writes:
>In article <csjohn.711865104@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (Bullwinkle) writes:
>>
>>I will be getting a 14,400 bps v.32/v.32bis/v.42/v.42bis
>>fax/modem soon.  I have noticed that on all of the MSDOS
>>and OS/2 communications software that I have seen there is
>>no setting for 14,400 bps, although there is for 9600 bps and
>>19,200 bps.   Is there any way to access the 14,400 bps
>>speed, or am I stuck at 9600 bps for now?  Is there any software
>>out there that supports 14,400 bps?  Thanks. 
>
>No communication programs have a 14.4K baud setting.
>
>You set the comm speed to 19.2K baud for regular communication, or you set
>it to 38.2K baud when using data compression.  I always set mine to 38.2K
>baud and when calling somewhere and the 'auto-detect' will slow it down if
>necessary.
>I use telix 3.15, you can set the comm speed to 38.2K baud.
>

Why not 57.6k?  Most comm programs support it (including Telix 3.15), and
if you do a quick calculation (14400 x v.42bis comp (4x)), you end up
with 57.6k.  If the modem is behaving properly, it will fall back to
anything below that.

Jonathan


-- 
Jonathan Layes                  / \    / \  "In case of fire.... shout FIRE!"
\ Physics & Computing Science  (  *)  (  *)    "If it doesn't work, hit it 
\\\ Dalhousie University        \ /  \ \ /          with a big stick!"
\\\\\ Halifax, Nova Scotia           _)       E-mail to: layes@Ug.CS.Dal.CA
From: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: RE: USR FAX
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 21:10:01 EST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:226/20.18 - cmhGate UF Gateway, Columbus OH

wilken@plains.NoDak.edu (Scott Wilken) writes:

SW> Does anyone know if there is an upgrade for the square led 
SW> large footprint USR Courier V.32bis modems to the Courier 
SW> V.32bis/9600fax? 

The only word that's semi-official is that the upgrade program (similar to
Loyalty Pays, I guess) will be announced "real soon now."

Call them at 800-982-5151 and ask to be put on a list for notification of the
upgrade policy.  I called, and they asked if I had a fax number, so that's
what I gave them.

--Adam--
 
--  
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!n8emr!bluemoon!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Boom! You're Dead.
Summary: Try it!
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:33:59 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <1992Jul18.142836.4351@qiclab.scn> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com writes:
>
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>Of course, you could set the escape character to something unprintable 
>>(> 127) and use out-of-band control (like a BREAK) to get back to command
>>mode.
>
>Tell you what. Set the escape sequence on one of these modems to (say)
>128. Then wait until you get a binary file containing 3 128s in a row.
>Boom! Instant command mode. 

Incorrect.

Call the number below, log in, and send three 128s in a row.  Nothing will
happen on this end.  You will simply have sent three 128s.

The escape character is set to 128 on all my modems.  None is a Hayes.
128 and above means >disabled< on all my modems, ergo, none will return to
command mode.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: dwilliam@jabba.ess.harris.com (David Williams)
Subject: Re: Why not PEP over cellular?
Organization: Harris Information Systems Division, Melbourne, FL
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:54:18 GMT

In <BOB.92Jul17141605@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:

>In article <clemon.08f0@lemsys.UUCP> clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL) writes:
>   Generally it is accepted, however, that when trying to carry on a
>   high-speed data connection via cellular, you will have the sense to
>   stop driving :-).

>Why would I want to restrict myself to not driving while my connection
>is open?  After I conduct my interactive business and hit the road,
>there may still be a long FTP transfer or source tree rdist or NNTP
>update (often all the above, simultaneously) that don't require my
>attention.  I can pitch my SPARCbook in the other seat, with its disk
>and modem still grinding away, and forget about it.  After my notebook
>and the office server are in sync and the traffic dies down, the PPP
>link will idle out and hang up the cell call.  And shortly after that,
>the SPARCbook will shut itself down to conserve its batteries (unless
>I have it plugged into the car's power bus, which Mazda has cleverly
>camouflaged as a cigarette lighter socket :-).

    Well, the problem is : How do you tell the difference between your 
target telephone (the office machine) giving up and hanging up the line
and the cellular link handing off to another cell?  Both involve service
interruption.  Some cell handoffs can get really long, due to local 
traffic and signal quality.

    To make this work, you would have to have some way to tell the 
difference between a loss of signal and a handoff, which the cell
network does not provide (untill your call comes back, that is... :-)
At least, I think that's true - anyone out there work for a cell-phone
related business?  Anyway for a smart modem to tell the difference?

    I thought of using the loss-of-signal timeout for most modems,
which allows a fairly long delay before the modem gives up.  This was
my solution for a call-waiting system that would not respond to a *70
command. (Local PBX, non-standard)  The modem would tolerate all sorts
of long delays when the timeout was set long enough (although the tone
tended to get it confused).  Cell phone handoffs, in my experience, tend
to have a good bit of line noise and hash added in.  Is this due to the
fact that I've only used a cell phone in a poor service area?  How do
cell phones do when they are presented with a large variety of excellent
signals?


-- 
      Dave Williams                                              My 
        dwilliam@jabba.ess.harris.com                         opinions	 
           "Huh?  What?  Could you repeat the question?"        only.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: BOCA 14.4 fax/modem - help! 
From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:52:33 GMT
Organization: GCS Limited, Wellington, New Zealand

Does anybody have idea about the following problems I am encountering with
a BOCA 14.4 fax/modem. I installed it in my 386/40 as COM2 (I have a serial
port as COM1), ATI Stereo/FX card and  Microsoft Bus Mouse.  Using Procomm+
I was able to initially connect at 9600 to a couple of BBS's but the characters
got garbled occasionally. Now the modem will not respond to any AT command 
at any speed (ATZ etc.) although it will dial out using ATDTnnnnnnn. Once the
remote modem answers no connect at any speed. About the only change I made was
to add in a long initialisation string BOCA recommends if trying to connect
to a HST Dual Standard (nothing special in the string). I would like to even
set the modem back to factory defaults if I could.
WinfaxPro also reports comms errors
with the modem. I would like to call BOCA Tech Support but I don't fancy
the long hold on an international call.
So if anybody out there has any ideas I would really appreciate hearing them.
I've got a RMA to return the card but I would rather know that it was
something silly I had done.

Thanks


=========================================================================== 
 Laurence Chiu                      |
 Principal Consultant               |
 GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand   |
 Tel: +64 4 801 0176                | Internet    : lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz
 Fax: +64 4 801 0095                | Compuserve  : 71750,1527

 Disclaimer: I speak only for myself - usual caveats apply!
===========================================================================
From: jroth@aegis.or.jp (Joel Roth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: WB parameters
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:05:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Aegis Society, Kyoto Japan


Michael Bryan recently said:

>The ability to talk with 4.00 TB+ ROMs doesn't yet exist in the WB ROMs.
>(However, the tech support person I talked to said that it would be in
>the next ROM release, expected sometime in the next three weeks or so.)

I recently did a test with a T2000 (4.00 ROM) and a WB wired together.
The T2000 would accept the WB's answer tones, but not vice versa.

Incidentally the T2000 and TB+ share a common manual. Does anyone know
what makes them different?
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11467 can.uucp:189
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,can.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCP 'g' vs. MNP & V.42
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 21:31:59 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes:

> We're talking about UUCP 'g' here, and with "normal" parameters,
> uucico will often wait (and sometimes timeout while waiting) for
> ACKs.  This degrades throughput.  It is effectively a loss of ~15%
> when MNP-4 and UUCP 'g' are used over V.22bis, and as much as 50% when
> used over V.32.  These are measured results.

   It seems that mileage varies widely:

> [No, at 2400 bps the increased latency of MNP-4 without spoofing does
> not usually cause *timeouts* with UUCP 'g' at a window size of 3,
> packet size of 64, but will cause delays.

   I've found that my UUCP-g over 2400 bps connect went from 230 CPS to 270 
CPS when MNP was enabled (T1000 to T3000 and GVC SM9600 to TB+).  With 
apologies, that's a measured result. 

> Note however that line
> noise will immediately increase the latency, and thus the chance of a
> timeout.  So, spoofing is a double win -- 1) the host-to-modem link is
> guaranteed error free; 2) the DCE-DCE link latency does not affect the
> file transfer protocol.]

   I'm all for spoofing; it's very effective where you're stuck with a non-
windowed or poorly windowed protocol.  Thankfully, better protocols are coming 
into common use (SLIP, PPP)... one of these days I'll install one. <grin>

> So, any other questions about why UUCP sites everywhere use Telebits?  :-)

   How about: UUCP sites had tough communications needs, and the TB did 11 
kbps when 2400 bps was becoming standard, and 18 kbps when 9600 was becoming 
standard, not to mention that it handled noise best.  The spoofing simply 
allowed us all to overlook that the modem is essentially half-duplex. 

Geoffrey Welsh, 7 Strath Humber Court, Islington, Ontario, M9A 4C8 Canada
geoff@zswamp.uucp, [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff (416)258-8467
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,can.uucp
From: john@chance.gts.org (John R MacMillan)
Subject: Re: UUCP 'g' vs. MNP & V.42
Organization: Reverse - esreveR :noitazinagrO
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:13:51 GMT


|> I don't know, I use MNP-5 (and hence 4) on two of my mostly-mail (ie.
|> uncompressed) connections and I see much improved throughput.  Even on
|> much of the compressed stuff there is some improvement, though there
|> is sometimes also degradation.
|
|As I said, it depends upon the compressibility of the data, the
|configuration of the UUCP 'g' parameters, the exact nature of any line
|errors, and the ability of the modem to spoof UUCP 'g'.

Actually I was responding primarily to the comment:

|Anybody running MNP at any level with UUCP 'g' should have their modem
|and UUCP configurations examined!  :-)

...since I think my configurations are fine.

|[The latter is a measured average, not theoretical, from regular MNP-4
|connections over V.22bis (i.e. 2400bps).]

I'm running MNP5 over V.22bis on two connections and my measured
average _improvement_ is 20% on both connections.  And one of those
connections is partly compressed news batche.

|So, in general, unless you have specific requirements, it is best to
|disable MNP completely when dialing out with UUCP.

But then again, maybe not. :-)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: kenb@dadd.ti.com (Ken Butler)
Subject: Re: Cordless Modems
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:17:21 GMT

Regarding Re: Cordless Modems; larry@dprmpt.UUCP (Larry) adds:

Larry> 2.  Get one of those gadgets that uses your house's electrical
Larry> wiring to give you a "phone jack" at any electrical outlet.  I've
Larry> seen them advertised in the DAK catalog, and I know they're
Larry> available from TELEDYNAMICS, a wholesaler I deal with.  E-mail me if
Larry> you need addresses & phone numbers.

I've tried to respond by e-mail, but can't get UUCP addresses to work here.
I'd be curious to see the details of the electrical outlet phone jacks.

Anybody have any experience with these gadgets  Do they work at all?

Thanks.

Ken
--

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Kenneth M. Butler                           (214) 997-6370 (office)
Texas Instruments                           (214) 997-2049 (FAX)
P.O. Box 655303 MS 3683                     kenb@dadd.ti.com
Dallas, TX 75265
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: buc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Richards)
Subject: Is VoiceMail coming (or here) for ZyXEL modems ???
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 06:10:20 GMT

Does anyone know if ZyXEL ever plans to add Voice Mail capability to
its current line of modems???

Thanks.
From: kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Did I *really* get hardware handshake cable?
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:40:25 GMT
Organization: Wayne's World, Inc -- NOT!

In article <1992Jul30.141350.6675@news.acns.nwu.edu> golub@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Golub) writes:
>I ordered a hardware handshaking cable for my new modem, but I'm not sure
>how to tell if that's what I got. Is there a way to tell by its appearance?

Usually not. You'd have to open the cable up and look to tell for sure.
The only way outside of doing that is trying it.
-- 
   Dameon Welch      Santa Clara University Design Center      kc@netcom.com
                    Help, I'm trapped in a .signature file
From: poffen@rushmore (Russ Poffenberger)
Subject: Re: Why is Zoom half the price of other 14.4's?
Organization: Schlumberger Technologies, ATE division, San Jose, Ca.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:57:53 GMT

swaliff@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Steve Aliff) writes:
: 
: ZOOM's phone is (617) 423-1076.
: -- 
: Steve Aliff (swaliff@afterlife.ncsc.mil [144.51.1.1])

Thjat is their tech support number. Trying to get through is almost impossible.

Their main number (for sales and stuff) is 423-1072.

Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies       UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             Voice: (408)437-5254  FAX: (408)437-5246
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems