HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas) 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: RE: V.42BIS/LAP-M QUESTIO
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas) 

oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

 >> How come that I sometimes have to get retries from Z-modem when
 >> using a modem with MNP-5 or V.42bis/LAP-M ? Both include error
 >> correction, and I thought that would ensure that all packages
 >> would be transfered as sent. I also thought that the RE or TE
 >> messages I see on very noisy lines on my Supra V.32bis would mean
 >> that the modems resent the packages.

 > Well, imagine a lost bit either (1) between your computer and your
 > modem or (2) at the other end, between their modem and their
 > computer.  No amount of v.42 or MNP4 in hardware will fix that.  I
 > got two retried zmodem packets the other day downloading from
 > Compuserve.  Pretty scary but that's just about the only
 > explanation.

Wow that is pretty scary -- because CompuServe doesn't even support
Zmodem.  <grin>

Seriously -- the most common cause of Zmodem errors on an
error-correcting link is improper or inadequate flow control at the
receiver, which results in lost characters due to overrun.  Sometimes
dropping the modem-to-computer speed (e.g., 57600 down to 38400) will
help; other times a buffered (e.g., 16550) UART may be needed; etc.

BTW, there really isn't any good reason in almost all cases to use a
port speed higher than 38400 even with a V.32bis modem; in fact,
if you only transfer compressed (e.g., ZIP or ZOO) files, 19200 is
usually all you need for maximum performance.  The advantage of a
lower speed is that you reduce the chance of receive overrun.

Best regards,
John
                                                                                                                              
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Transfer Station BBS (510) 837-4610 & 837-5591 (V.32bis both lines)|
| Danville, California, USA. 400+ MB Files & FREE public Internet Access |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: stanworthdjh@vax1.bham.ac.uk (Dave <Rubicon>)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Software MNP5
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:53:29 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.bham.ac.uk

I'm trying to use software MNP5 to connect to a remote modem with
hardware MNP5.  The software tells me that MNP5 protocol is in
use, and appears to connect OK.  The trouble is, that the information
that is fed to the screen is utter tripe.

Any ideas or suggestions ??  IF YOU NEED MORE INFO JUST ASK
  
Ta Dave
-- 
.sig deleted due to good taste
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.mac.comm
From: scottb@netcom.com (L'etat des mortes)
Subject: Mac+ATI Technologies 9600 ETC E = Help Needed
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:01:33 GMT

A friend of mine is having a great deal of trouble getting his 
ATI Technologies 9600 ETC E modem to work properly with his Mac.  

He can get connects, but most of the time the modem dropps carrier, and
when he can actually get online anywhere long enough to do any file
transfer he gets plenty of errors and a very poor transfer rate.  

Is there anyone out there using this modem on a Mac?  We have a Mac HWHS
cable and a standard cable.  We've tried both with varried settings and
the same result as above.

Send E-Mail if you can help

Thanks!  

scottb@netcom.com

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: scottb@sun1x.actc.res.utc.com (TheLrdLovsAHngn)
Subject: Re: Procomm+ 4win update
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:26:35 GMT

I believe that they can be found on cica and wuarchive.  Not sure what 
directory they are in.  The two files that you want are: maint1.exe and
wmodems.com.  Both are self-extracting.  Hope this helps.
-- 
Disclaimer:  I didn't do it!  Nobody saw me do it!  You can't prove anything! 
             My opinions are my own.   They do not reflect anyone/thing else!
\/       preferred        \/
scottb%nw8550@utrcgw.utc.com            |           sdb@rcinet.utc.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: dir@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Daniel I. Rosenblatt)
Subject: Re: A Telebit FAX upgrade FLAME (Was: "Re: WB Fax Upgrade")
Keywords: Telebit  FAX  documentation
Organization: US WEST Information Technologies
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:46:41 GMT

Check out fax-3.2.1.tar.Z on prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu

It is a fully functioning FAX package for CLASS 2 modems.

AND ITS FREE.

AND IT WORKS. 

I've got it working on Sun, Mips, and SCO UNIX on a 386.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: sjm2458@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (The Steve-meister)
Subject: Crosstalk for Windows- upload Zmodem thrash
Organization: None to my knowledge
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:31:11 GMT

Anybody notice problems with Crosstalk for Windows doing Zmodem
uploads?  What is odd is that I have found that I can download 
Zmodem OK, and upload X- and Ymodem OK, I get what I call "zmodem
thrash" while trying to upload.

The "thrash" begins with a rediculously (sp?) high throughput display
(e.g. 2300 cps on a 2400 baud connection), which continues to *increase*
along with the number of bytes transmitted, while the graphical bar which
depicts percentage completion "thrashes" between values (e.g. 5%, then
35%, then 45%, then 7%, then ...).  Once the transmitted byte count reaches
the value of the file size, the percentage complete bar skips to 100%,
and then the timeout errors begin.  This is usually where I manually kill
the attempted transfer.

It would appear to be a problem with Crosstalk for Windows, since 
I can upload successfully to the same remote computer using 
QModem with its zmodem protocol.

Configuration:
   Gateway 486DX2/50
   TelePath modem
   Crosstalk for Windows ver. 1.2.2 (OEM version)
   
Anybody know if this is related to the Ctrl-Break problem reported a
while back?

E-mail preferred.
-- 
    Steve McCarthy, speaking solo por mio |   #include <witty_remark>
      reply: sjm2458@bcstec.ca.boeing.com |   #include <ascii.art>
From: echo@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu (J. 'Echo' Kopaz)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: info on Zoom VFP/VPX
Keywords: QUERY ZOOM
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:55:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

Could you please take a moment and help me out....
We are thinking about buying some new modems.


Does anyone have comments on the Zoom VFP/VFX modem?

Has anyone used it in sync. mode?

       on Non-messdos machines (PDP's etc..)?

Has it given anyone troubles?

Is it good to the FAX version?

thanx
echo
--
  J. 'Echo' Kopaz                   echo@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Hayes V.series 9600 Smartmodem. Question
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:36:05 EST
Organization: Izot's Swamp

dhuey@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:

> My friend recently gave me his old Hayes 9600 minus the instruction book.
>
> I tried in vain to connect at 9600 with other BBSs that have v32 and v32.bis
> modems.  My friend says that this older modem has v32. 
>
> So, is my friend wrong or is there something I can to force to stay in 
> highspeedmode ? 

   Your friend is mistaken.  The V-9600 uses a modulation which is based on, 
but not compatible with, V.32.  I understand that for some time there was a 
possibility that it would be standardized as V.32HDX (half duplex V.32), but 
it never happened and a Hayes V-Series Smartmodem 9600 will speak at high 
speed only to another of its kind.

  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
                Now I've lost everything, I give to you my soul
           And the meaning of all that I believed before escapes me
                  In this world of none, no thing, and no one
                            - Genesis, _Afterglow_
From: carlos@carlos
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Can I upgrade a 16450 uart to a 16550a?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:40:18 -0500
Reply-To: carlos@infoserv.com
Organization: Dominguez UseNet, Brooklyn NY, USA

In <1993Jan7.152939.28987@wam.umd.edu> joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

>I just purchased a high speed modem (14.4K from Boca) for my Dell
>325D.  I was almost sure Dell would have put a good uart in the
>machine, but it turns out it's only a 16450.  Naturally, I'm losing
>char.s with high-speed transfers, especially with a loaded machine
>(I'm running Linux --- a Unix clone).

Is it an Internal or external BOCA modem?

>Is it possible to upgrade the 16450 to a 16550a?  (I assume that will
>help the problem; correct me if I'm wrong.)  

If the BOCA is an internal model, I don't think so. It has a UART
emulator and buffer built in.

If its an external model, add a new serial card with a 16550.

>[I tried asking the representative a Dell, but, when he answer my
>question of "What kind of uart is in the machine" with "You have a
>VLSI chip," I gave up.]

Call again, and find someone there who knows what they are talking
about. If not keep on asking for a supervisor or someone in charge.



-- 
  ___ ___  __   .   ___  __  //  Carlos Dominguez, MS-DOS Enthusiast !
 /   /__/ /_ ) /   /  / /_  // | carlos@infoserv.com  carlos@dorsai.com
(__ (  / /  \ (__ (__/ __/ ..  | carlos@phantom.com   FIDONET 1:278/706
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit T1000 queston
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:31:16 EST
Organization: Izot's Swamp

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

> geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
> 
> >leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> 
> >> I believe it supports:
> >> [...]
> >> ???		300 bps (European)
> 
> >   I believe that this would be V.21, but my T1000 makes no mention of it.
> 
> Check the S90 switch in the Enhanced Command Mode section of the manual.

   It mentions V.22 (for 1200 bps) but not V.21 for 300 bps.

> >> And it *may* be able to support the CCITT V.23(?) standard (that's the
> >> one with the 1200 bps/75 bps split send/receive rate.
> 
> >   The manual also makes no mention of this.
> 
> I don't have a T1000 manual handy, but check S50 in the enhanced command
> mode section.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the Bell/CCITT switch is there, as the listing of
> the config of a friends T1000 lists S90. Whether S50 will accept a 5
> is a bit harder to check. :-)

   I have FA2.00 firmware (not the most recent, but hardly obsolete), and my 
manual mentions only the following values for S50:

        0       Automatic speed determination
        1       300 bps operation (Bell 103 Mode)
        2       1200 bps operation (Bell 212A or V.22 Mode)
        3       2400 bps operation (V.22bis Mode)
        254     Attempt to connect at speed of last AT command
        255     FAST operation (PEP Mode)

  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
                Now I've lost everything, I give to you my soul
           And the meaning of all that I believed before escapes me
                  In this world of none, no thing, and no one
                            - Genesis, _Afterglow_
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: ZyXEL upgrade seems to work
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:46:58 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC




Well, I got the upgrade for my ZyXEL U-1496E modems.  I was lucky and
my ZyXELs were the kind that already have 32-pin PROM sockets, so 
I did not have to send in the modems for the upgrades -- all I had to
do was send away for new PROMs.

The package arrived and true to form the software was not explained
anywhere in print.  Even the READ.ME file explained very little.
Nothing about how to use the voice feature, nothing about how to use
the caller ID feature.  The pictures showing how to put in the new
PROMs was a fax of a photocopy of a fax, and coffee had apparently 
been spilled on the original.  But, it is not so tough to install 
new PROMs even without instructions.

After I installed the new PROMs I powered it all up, ran Procomm Plus,
and typed ATI0 and ATI1.  It all worked, which reassured me that
I had not gotten the two chips reversed, nor upside-down, nor had I
bent any pins or damaged things with static.  The instructions should
really have listed this as a sensible first step after installing the
upgrade.  Of course they did not.

In case it may be of interest, the old modem had given these messages:
Old ati0       -        U1496E  V 4.09a
Old ati1       -        42022
Old PCPlus setup:
Modem "Zyxel U-1496 Series"
   transmit "AT^M~~AT&F^M~~~"
   transmit "AT&D2~&R0~&T5~S11=60^M~~"
   set baudrate 57600
   transmit "AT^M~~AT&W1^M"
   initstring="ATZ1^M"
   mnp=1
   no_connect 3="NO DIALTONE"
   no_connect 4="NO ANSWER"
   baudrate=57600
 
The new modem chips gave these messages:
New ati0       -        U1496E  V 5.05 M
New ati1       -         4943
New PCPlus setup:
Modem "ZyXEL U-1496"
   transmit "AT&F&K4^M~~"
   transmit "AT&C1~&D2~S7=60~S11=55^M~~"
   transmit "AT&W0^M"
   initstring="ATZ0^M"
   no_connect 3="ERROR"
   no_connect 4="NO DIALTONE"
   mnp=1
   baudrate=38400

I find it interesting that the old recommended setup was a DTE rate of
57600 BPS, while the new recommended setup was 38500.

And here is the connect message I got when I called Panix:

CONNECT 38400/ZyX  16800/V42b

This suggests that I am communicating with panix at 16.8 KBPS.
I count that as good news.  And with V42b I suppose the theoretic maximum
is four times that.

Carl Oppedahl

-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
oppedahl@panix.com

-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rkimball@athena.qualcomm.com (Robert Kimball)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL voice and flow control
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:35:46 GMT

ud@Nightmare.ddt.sub.org (Ulrich Dessauer) writes:

>fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
>[.. SW-flow control ..]
>~ Hardly; XON/XOFF is the TTY driver's job.  Set IXON, and feel free to write
>~ gobs and gobs of data and let the TTY driver worry about flow control.
>	I think the problem is that the voice data stream may contain
>these software flow control characters as part of the data itself. So
>you need some kind of "one way flow control", i.e. while receiving data
>you can control the flow with XON/XOFF but you must not interpret XON/XOFF
>in the data got. I don't know if *IX is able to handle this, OS-9 doesn't
>support it.

So, if the RX data from the modem has XON/XOFF characters, when I send
this data back to the modem (TX mode) do I need to write a DLE before
I write the XON/XOFF character or do I just send the character?  Will
the modem correctly handle XON/XOFF chars on TX?

>		Prefering hardware flow control, U//i

Hardware flow control would eliminate the confusion...


-- 


Bob Kimball
rkimball@qualcomm.com
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Anybody have trouble with these retailers?
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:09:29 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


I am thinking of buying either a Practical Peripherals 
PM14400FXPKT from S&W at 212-463-8330 ($365) or a
Multi-Tech MT1432Mu from Direct of New England ($460).  Anybody
have bad experiences I should hear about with either modem or either
retailer?

Thanks.
Carl Oppedahl

-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
From: dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz (Kennelmeister)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Differences between E and E+...
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 20:41:52 +1300
Organization: The Dawghaus BBS, Palmerston North, New Zealand (+64 6 357 9245)

mckeeveb@monashee.sfu.ca (Gumby - The unknown user) writes:

> Well...
> 
> Some results are in.
> 
> Board differences (Board Rev B for the E, E+): clock speed select switch.
> 
> The real difference seems to be in the contents of the EEPROM.  We tried
> looking at this and discovered that the drain caused by the scope dropped
> the signal enough to make the modem think it was a non-plus model (on E+).
> 
> We're working on decoding the contents... maybe we'll be able to release an
> 'upgrade ROM' to change at least some of the E's to E+'s...
> 
> 'nough said.

Why ot just ftp the E+ ROMs? They're available readily enough.
try ftp.csie.nctu.edu.tw for starters - look in the "ZyXEL" directory.

--
Alan Brown. (SysAdmin)
dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz                      Palmerston North
Dawghaus BBS -> +64 (6) 357-9245                New Zealand
             "A wet and windy place in the South Pacific"
From: usdpd@emory.edu (BIMCORE User)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: DALLAS FAX, DONT BUY!!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:19:23 GMT
Organization: Emory University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Greetings-
	Forgive me of some of y'all have posted similar articals 
about Dallas FAX, but I don't read this group regularly and need 
vent!

My story:
	Back in July of '92, I saw an add for a VoiceMail-9600-
FAXBoard modem for $300 from a company called Dallas FAX, and
thought it was too good to be true.  As it turns out (6 mo. later)
it was.
	When I ordered the modem they told me it was vapor hardware, 
but would be available within ONE MONTH.  This began a series of 
phone calls and letters in which Dallas FAX kept postponing the 
shipment of this modem.  Finally about 3 mo. ago one of their sales
people called me up and told me he would send me the 2400 bps version
for $200, and allow me to upgrade in DECEMBER for the diffence of 
$100.
	Well today (the 4th of Jan.) I finally called and spoke with
a very unsympathetic gentleman by the name of Tom Right.  He had the
audacity to cut short some of my complaints with:

	"Read the fine print" (refering to the "prices subject to change"
			       at the bottom of all their adds)
and dismissed my upgrade promise by saying:
"A verbal agreement is not worth anything."

	Tom Right went on to that he would "as a gesture of good will"
upgrade me to the new 9600-v32bis version for $189, and it SHOULD be
available in MARCH!

	I IMPLORE ANY OF YOU THAT DO NOT WISH TO REWARD THIS KIND OF 
CUSTOMER SERVICE NOT TO DEAL WITH THIS COMPANY.
			-Dave

w: 404/727-2191
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: PPI repair charges (Re: PPI Modem...)
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:57:01 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Digest

aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes:

>The PPI Support rep told me that the current cost is $25.
>$25 for a modem that lists for $100 and costs about $2 to ship (less than
>a pound) is NOT trivial.
>Secondly, I didn't "generalize" this to any other products of theirs.  
>The support rep I dealt with wouldn't quote me the other repair prices and
>didn't indicate that the $15/$25 was the same across the product line.

I'll agree that $25 is a bit steep for a $100 modem, yes.  $25 (or $15,
whichever it is) for my unit (a $400 faxmodem, ouch) wouldn't be surprising
at all.  I suspect the repair cost is _not_ going to be anywhere near
proportional to the unit cost.  In the case of your pocket-modem, the fact
that they're working on somewhat miniaturized technology might have something
to do with the higher proportional price.

-Shag

-- 
Shag                    | Operator, ShagNET | Editor of "Screaming in Digital" 
birchall@pilot.njin.net |  Rutgers / NJIN   |  The Queensryche E-mail Digest 
birchall@njin.bitnet    | dialup access for | queensryche-owner@pilot.njin.net
shag@most.other.places  | Burlington County | Anything Queensryche, every week
From: dmkasten@redorc.chi.il.us (Bowie Poag)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: USR modems..
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:18:10 CST
Organization: Red Oracle Bbs/Network

In article <19130@mindlink.bc.ca>, Steven_Lam@mindlink.bc.ca (Steven Lam)
writes:
>I notice that there isn't too many messages on here concerning US Robotics
>products.  Especially the Sporster and Courier v.32bis fax and dual standard
>fax products.  Is there anybody out there who use them?  Any comments or
>critisim?  I sell USR modems and would like to find out people's opinion on
>them.  BTW, I have a Dual Standard with fax and am VERY happy with it.
>
At least here in the Amiga community, virtually 100% of every Amiga BBS ive
called uses USRobotics products, exept a few, which use Zyxels.. Which is no
problem, because my Sportster can get along with a Zyxel flawlessly. 



        +-----------------------------------------------------------+
        |o|              I think, therefore I Amiga.              |=|
        +-----------------------------------------------------------+
        | Douglas Michael Kasten (DMK) | Amiga 2000HD/5 with a tiny |
        |  dmkasten@redorc.chi.il.us   | little 21" Toshiba monitor.|
        +------------------------------+----------------------------+
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:19138 comp.dcom.fax:2397
From: shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.dcom.fax
Subject: Intel 400/e in non-DOS environment <was: MNP5 software+CAS Spec>
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:09:32 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: A/C International

vinaya_s1@verifone.com writes:

>2. I am interested in gettting Intel CAS specification for FAX cards. I will be 
>3. Is there any public domain fax software/code  which I can use /port to QNX.

>I will be happy if anyone at INtel can provide more info on this. Please note
>that I don't have ftp access.

	Let me extend and generalize the question: Putting aside the bundled
	communication and fax software associated with the 400/external, is
	there any reason this modem couldn't be used to support *fax*
	functionality outside of the DOS environment? If one had, say,
	appropriate fax software for a Macintosh, or Sun, or Next, could
	this modem work as a fax modem? Or is it doomed to live within
	the DOS ghetto? Has anyone done it? Tried, without success, to get
	the straight scoop earlier from Intel, so I pose the question here.
-- 

uunet!media!irscscm!nearside!shwake			shwake@rsxtech
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rkimball@athena.qualcomm.com (Robert Kimball)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL voice and flow control
Keywords: ZyXEL voice flow control
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:46:50 GMT

fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:

>In article <rkimball.726258443@athena> rkimball@athena.qualcomm.com (Robert Kimball) writes:
>|One more thing I would add to the list, this one really annoys me...
>|
>|5.) Recognize and report DTMF while transmitting voice.  This is really needed
>|    for proper voice mail so that while playing your greeting the call can
>|    enter DTMFs to get to a mailbox, without having to listen to the entire
>|    greeting.

>This works for me.  I dialed 123456789*0# after typing AT+VTX.

>OK
>at+fclass=8
>OK
>atdt37438
>VCON
>at+vls=2
>VCON
>at+vtx
>CONNECT
>^P1^P2^P3^P4^P5^P6^P7^P8^P9^P*^P0^P#
>VCON
>ath
>OK

>I've never tried it while actually transmitting data, but I presume it works
>the same.  This is using U1496E  V 5.02 M.

I tried it with no success.  I will try again.  The modem has a real problem
decoding DTMF on the phone I use for testing.  It can only decode the
3, 6, 9, # keys...sort of.  I have another phone which produces long tones
and the modem can decode those well.  I will try with that phone.

Thanks.
-- 
rkimball@qualcomm.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,alt.fax
From: eng10453@nusunix1.nus.sg (LEE YEOW CHONG)
Subject: Re: Auto Switch? 
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:36:21 GMT

sorry just testing