HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: Maximum transmission speed via phone lines
Keywords: MODEM High Speed Maximum Roof
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 22:28:00 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

andreas@didymus.rmi.de (Andreas Fassl) writes:

> after hearing about the planned speed for V.FAST (I think app. 28800 bps)
> I tried to find an article in a german magazine about the maximum
> possible speed for phone lines published some years ago. 
> I have in mind something about 120 kbps (maybe more) using the full
> frequency available on phone lines.

   Since a large (and growing) number of phone connections are carried over 64 
kbps digitized lines, I would discredit anything that plans to do better than 
that.

   How closely you can approach that 64 kbps depends on the quality of your 
line (signal to noise ratio, very low distortion) and of the components in the 
modem (since the signals must be more finely distinguished as you increase the 
bits per symbol rate).

   I'd guess that V.fast is a good compromise between the need to build a 
faster modem and the reality of quality in components and in mass production.

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
"Feel for the winter but don't have a cold heart" - Little River Band, "Lady"
From: stefan@krefcom.ish.de (Stefan Haefs)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: problem with modem:Discovery2400C
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:19:46 GMT
Reply-To: haefs@schrott.math.uni-duisburg.de
Organization: Krefcom UUCP Server, Krefeld, FRG

problem with dicovery 2400 c  modem

I'm using this modem with the terminal program 'telix' for ms-dos.
While loading up files or text with the zmodem-protocol following happens:

- waiting for file error
- just transfer 30 to 60 characters per second instead of 230 - 240
- timeout error

These errors appear during uploading something.
Because of this problem it is almoust impossible to transfer files.

I hope anyone can help with this problem.

Thank you !
Stefan

Please answer with mail !


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: buc@leland.stanford.edu (Robert Richards)
Subject: NetFax & ZyXEL U-1496E ... are they compatible???
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 09:45:18 GMT

I have Netfax 3.2.1 on a SPARCstation.  NetFax seems to run fine but
does not get far when it starts talking to the ZyXEL modem.

Has anyone used NetFax with a ZyXEL?

Do I need a special cable for SPARC <-> ZyXEL?

Thanks for any assistance.

FYI. NetFax is avialable via anonymous ftp from
	transit.ai.mit.edu	in the /pub/systems directory

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Richards			 Internet: buc@jessica.Stanford.Edu
Stanford University           	 FAX:      (415) 725-8240
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: cathy@bernie.sal.wisc.edu (Cathy Accettura)
Subject: Trailblazer acucap
Organization: Space Astronomy Lab, Madison WI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:43:08 GMT

I have a VaxStation 3500 running Ultrix.  I have a
trailblazer connected to the VaxStation.   I am 
currently trying to get tip to work but keep getting
the error can't syncronize.  I think I need a better
acucap then the one provided by ultrix.

Any recomendations for switch settings and acucap
parameters would be helpful.

Thanks
Cathy Accettura
cathy@sal.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Word of Advice
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:41:36 GMT

mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

>have bought two Supras for the price of one WorldBlazer.  Price won
>out in the end, I suppose.)

I guess -- Supra'a 14.4 Faxmodem is a good deal -- with the SYSOP
price being $249 -- and latency is as good as the USR v.32bis modems
and better than the WorldBlazer/T3000

>in it, but you *will* get a low price.  Remember, folks: You get what
>you pay for.

Usually, yes --
but there are exceptions to every rule :)

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Subject: Re: What's a good 14400 modem?? (Intel?)
Reply-To: honey@citi.umich.edu
Organization: Center for Information Technology Integration, Univ of Michigan
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:29:49 GMT

Vernon Schryver writes:
|> My "throughput test" consist of `ping -c ZZZZ remote`, increasing the
|> value of ZZZZ until the line stops keeping up, as observed for 20 to 60
|> seconds.  That forces the modems to process ZZZZ*2 bytes.

i have a different ping, so please check me on this.  isn't the packet
size ZZZZ + 20 (ip header) + 8 (echo header) + 1 (slip frame)?

	peter
From: smythe@cats.ucsc.edu (Brian Matthew Aljian)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZyXEL: serious serial # questions!!!
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:01:37 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <csjohn.715022226@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (The Mad Hatter) writes:
>To my surprise, I found that the SERIAL NUMBER ON THE OUTSIDE
>CASE WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ON THE INSIDE BOARD!

>...remain unanswered.  What is to stop an individual or a
>corporation that owns several of these modems to send an old,
>broken, out of warranty modem board back for warranty repairs
>in a modem case that is still covered under the warranty? 
>I can't believe that no one at Zero One hasn't thought of this.

Are all warrantees for the Zyxel modems five years?  Considering the
rate at wich modem technology is advancing, nobody will care about
a broken Zyxel in five years.  So I don't think Zero One is worrying
about warrantees expiring.

Hopefully in five years we'll all be connected together with fiber-optic
networks and won't need modems anymore... :-)  So I'm optomistic...
sue me!

-- 
   Brian M. Aljian
   smythe@stallion.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL: serious serial # questions!!!
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:28:51 GMT

In article <csjohn.715022226@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (The Mad Hatter) writes:
>Hello!
>   I just received a new (maybe) ZyXEL U-1496E (external) modem
>direct from Zero One Networking yesterday.  Out of curiosity,
>I took the top off of it to have a look at what was inside.
>To my surprise, I found that the SERIAL NUMBER ON THE OUTSIDE
>CASE WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ON THE INSIDE BOARD!
>...
>remain unanswered.  What is to stop an individual or a
>corporation that owns several of these modems to send an old,
>broken, out of warranty modem board back for warranty repairs
>in a modem case that is still covered under the warranty? 
>I can't believe that no one at Zero One hasn't thought of this.
>I must therefore conclude that this situation exists because
>it is somehow to their advantage.  The only thing that I can
>think of is that it gives them the opportunity to sell old, 
>used, repaired modem boards as new modems put into new cases!
>If this is true, it is outrageous!  
>...

There are advantages to the manufacturer to divorcing the *unit* serial 
number from the *board* serial number, not the least of which has to do 
with the serial number of the *software*. As an engineer with a company
whose products use what is called "embedded" software (it's all in ROM),
I can testify to the nightmare that configuration control becomes because
of this (oh, for the "good old days of SUHL - yes, I'm that old :-)).

Add to this the future potential of EEPROM and downloaded software, such as
used by Forval and AT&T Paradyne (my company is dealing with this now) and 
you only add to the problem.

I would suspect that, within ZyXel, there is a database that relates the unit, 
board, and software serial numbers together, and anyone attempting to send
in an old board in a new box for warrenty repair would get a call from them.

The company I work for does sell "refurbished" units, that is, units that have
been returned for exchange, or were used as demo units, etc, but they are
clearly labeled as such, and sold at a discount. I think that this practice
is not unusual. Selling them as new, however, would be unethical, but I don't
think that your example of differing serial numbers demostrates that ZyXel
is indulging in this behavior.

BTW, I have absolutely no interest in ZyXel -I don't even own one of 
their modems.
-- 
  Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    | That which does not kill me makes me strong.  |
 If my employer only knew... |                              -Nietzsche       |
   standard BS applies	     | ... but why risk it?  - me                    |
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: What's a good 14400 modem??
Organization: very little
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:33:28 GMT

In article <s+fn9yf.wolfgang@netcom.com> wolfgang@netcom.com (Wolfgang Henke) writes:
>
>I have reports that the Zoom connects well with Multitech modems, even
>the Multitech 14,400. I am not so sure about Zoom<->Telebit connections?
>Any reports?
>
>

I just got a ZOOM VFX v32/32bis v42/42bis (their top of the line
external model) and it works great connecting to a Telebit Trailblazer.

Midwest Micro has them for $299, but I found it at Telemart for
$285 (or was it $288??).  The internal model is cheaper, of course,
but I like the lights!



-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.wa.com        or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad
From: alansar@ccs.northeastern.edu (Mohammad Al-Ansari)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Supra FAX bug! (?)
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:40:21 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Aug25.220837.5923@nntp.hut.fi> s37756d@puukko.hut.fi (Casper Gripenberg) writes:
>
>
>Hello!
>
>I got my Supra FAX v32bis with the 1.200C ROMs and the modem works perfectly
>except for this very annoying bug:
>
>I have my modem setup as follows (if I remember correctly)
>AT&F2 &D L0 M0
>
>Ok now &F2 includes &C1 which says that DCD ON indicates data carrier
>from remote modem, ok so far. Then I have &D which tells the modem to
>ignore the DTR signal. Now, when I connect DCD goes on like it should,
>but if I drop DTR (like exiting from my terminal program) DCD also drops!!!
>
>This is really strange...The only way to get DCD back on is to do for
>example +++ at\o. 
>
>Do I have a one in a million bug in my Supra or does this happen 
>for all of you Supra owners? If it is a bug, does Supra know about it?
>

This doesn't happen with my Supra. I don't know why it is happening in
your case. I have the same ROM.

>Also +++ at\o only works for v42bis connections, if I try it on a
>MNP4 connection I get TE and the modem just hangs..What is the
>proper way to get back on-line after +++ ???

To simply go back on line use ATO. AT\O is supposed to originate an MNP
reliable connection.

>
>Thanks,
>
>   Casper (s37756d@puukko.hut.fi)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Al-Ansari, Ph.D. Student       | alansar@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu
College of Computer Science             | alansar@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Northeastern University                 | BITNET: alansar@NUHUB
From: MLPOWE01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (Michael Powell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Where *NOT* to buy your Supra
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:56:34 GMT
Organization: The Internet


      University of Louisville
Phone: (502)588-6744
>From: MARK MARGOLIS <FNOX@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
>
>I don't think I can take back the modem, and I DEFINATELY couldn't take it
   back
>without all the original packaging, etc. I think you are just experiencing bum
>luck - I have sold a bunch of Supras to people and I have received nothing but
>positive comments about the product.

I knew when the idiots at Supra insisted that I send the packaging, I
shouldn't have (I did get another power supply today).  As for the bum luck,
I don't think so.....once or twice, maybe, but once they get a third shot
at it and still can't get it right.....I'd attribute that to poor
workmanship (keep in mind that the second one wasn't even the right modem
and didn't work anyways and they didn't return anything but the incorrect
modem).

Oh, yeah, I also DEFINATELY would not expect to sell any more of these over
the Modem list as I plan to let them all know that you do not take returns
and that, once they buy it, if Supra can't fix it, they're stuck....Supra
won't take it back unless you buy it from them.

--Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------
BITNET:   mlpowe01@ulkyvm.bitnet
INTERNET: mlpowe01@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:12963 comp.dcom.fax:1616
From: tnixon@hayes.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.dcom.fax
Subject: Re: Supra BFT fax xfers
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:03:33 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Sep3.171334.29192@ole.cdac.com>, ray@ole.cdac.com
(Ray Berry) writes: 

>     The Supra announcement mentioned a 'BFT' binary file transfer option.
> I presume this entails transmitting binary data via the FAX modem at 14.4K
> with error correction.  Can anyone confirm this?  Further, is this capability
> part of a formal standard- or is it a proprietary add-on of Supra?  TIA.

BFT will be a CCITT standard, as soon as it is accepted. It is 
technically stable and there is no problem moving ahead with 
implementation. The data is formatted in a manner similar to FTAM 
(ASN.1 encoding) and then carried by the T.30 error correction mode 
(HDLC frames).  There is very little of BFT that is implemented in 
the modem -- just the ability to negotiate the single bit that 
indicates that BFT is in use.  All of the file formatting exists 
within the data portion of the message, which is handled by the 
computer software.

-- 
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 401243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                tnixon@hayes.com
From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.35 interface for PC?
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:02:52 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.

 hope@huracan.cr (Theodore Hope) writes:
>Does anyone know who makes/sells a V.35 interface card for a PC-type machine
>(preferable accessible under DOS)?
>
>With existing public-domain router software (ka9q, pcroute) for DOS, it would
>be nice to connect V.35-compatible equipment (CSU/DSU).

It is hardly necessary to use the v.35 type connector for 56kb speeds. Many
CSU/DSUs even 2 generations or more older of these were equipped with BOTH
RS-232 and V.35 connectors. The modern units also continue to support both
connectors *and* bring new features that may make buying expensive sync
cards needless for such low speeds as DDS. If you are planning to use
T1 or faster, then go for sync and v.35 or rs-422 or rs-530, and probably
a card that does protocol processing and even compression for you.

True, the RS232 spec stops short of 56kb, so keep your cables short
and you will have no problems. At 10' you never should have problems,
though you can go much farther with good cable.

It is not that ASYNC is particularly efficient or desirable, but it sure
is CHEAP. Every PC comes equipped to do 57.6 or even 115.2kb. It is
a good idea to swap in a $10 NS16550AFN uart, but it is still cheap.

The big problem with CSU/DSUs is NOT the connector (RAD even makes a
$150 active converter if you must get between v.35 and say rs232 or rs422)
but the real problem is that most CSU/DSUs are SYNC, not ASYNC.

The newer models of some CSU/DSUs *do* support ASYNC up to 19.2 or
even 38.4kb, and shortly there will be several at 57.6kb. The 2 
57.6kb async ones I am aware of now are between 1000 and $1500 list 
each end. That is silly, and in a few months there will be units with 
street prices maybe below $500 that do 57.6 async on 56kb sync dds lines. 

If you must get something TODAY, I think one of the BAT units at probably
less than $500 will do 38.4 async. If you can wait a bit, there will be
some snazzier units in the same price range that do 57.6 from companies
known for quality Central Office DDS and T1 gear.

They strip the start and stop bits, so you are getting 8/10ths of
57.6 which fits easily onto 56kb sync. 

You can use the very same PC with any of several ASYNC dialup modems
that do 57.6 on the rs-232 interface and try hard to compress enough
to stuff it all onto 14.4 or 16.8 or 19.2 or whatever they are running
actually on the phone line. Some, such as the ZyXEL, can also run on
leased 2 or 4 wire analog ckts.

For terminal server ports or for SLIP connections, something like 
DEC's DS700 not only supports 57.6, but also 115.2 kb!

So stay ASYNC for these applications if you want to save $s on low speed 
lines. 

The old rules of thumb about switching to SYNC devices are still true,
but the speeds at which this makes the most sense are now much higher. 
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:12938 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:23389
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: V.42bis - on 2400 baud
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 19:36:45 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

amigo@milton.u.washington.edu (The Friend) writes:

> 	Few questions about V.42bis 2400 baud modems... firstoff, whats
> the typical CPS rate on them with zip & gif files? I figure maybe 50%
> improvement, but its rough-guessing, you only get true 9600 baud output if
> its straight text files. 

   Sorry, but precompressed file (including .ZIP and .GIF files), receive 
roughly 20% throughput boost, but it's not from data compression, it's from 
the start and stop bit stripping performed by LAP-M.

> 	I'm not leaning towards a Zoom modem because recently I got
> suckered on their V.42bis packaged modem that really is "supported by
> software" V.42bis.. in other words you have to use the term program included
> to use the modem at V.42bis.

   I'd be suprised if this was true exactly as written.  I know of no 
inexpensive Hayes clones (other than Hayes itself) which provide the 
hardware/firmware support to enable LAP-M emulation in software, which would 
be needed to make the software compatible with V.42bis modems (which will 
count on LAP-M before initiating V.42bis). 

   However, Cardinal modems advertised MNP5 compatibility, even though they 
provided it only through software (MNP, unlike LAP-M, also comes with a fully 
asynchronous mode that doesn't provide the 20% boost on precompressed files, 
but does provide a base for MNP5 compression).

   Are you sure that you mean V.42bis, not MNP5?

   Also, MNP modems are V.42 compatible, since V.42 includes MNP as a fallback 
protocol... but they're not V.42 compliant, since they do not implement the 
V.42 recommendation in full.

   I know people who recommend the ZOOM V.32bis (14400 bps) modems with FAX 
very highly; they have had good connections with USRobotics Courier HST Dual 
Standard 16.8, Hayes Ultra 144, Gandalf 3242, and others.

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
         Coincidentally, most people who fight for "fairness" would be
         significantly better off under the system they call "fair"...
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: husemann@camelot.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Dirk Husemann)
Subject: How to use FAX on Zyxel 1496E w/ 5.01 ????
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:04:11 GMT

Hi,

we bought two Zyxel modems last week and are now trying to get them to receive
FAX. Basically what I'd like to do is to send a FAX from a FAX machine in the
office next door to the modem and have the modem answer the phone and tell me
CONNECT FAX (as I understand the manual the modem should). I got the modem to
answer (ATS0=4) but then I either get garbage or NO CARRIER. I looked at the 
texts that were on the disk coming with the modems and tried what they told me:
	
	(a)	AT#B1+FCLASS=6 		or
	(b)	AT#B0+FCLASS=6		or
	(c)	AT#F			or
	(d)	AT+FCLASS=2		(which looks much more reasonable,
					as AT+FCLASS=? yields 0,2,8, for which
					0 stands for DATA, 2 for FAX, 8 for
					VOICE)

Particularly confusing is the variety of ways to go, especially if neither one
seems to work (for me).

Is there a kind, knowing soul out there that has got his/her Zyxel running with
FAX reception enabled? What do I have to do? Any special register settings?
Do we need to kill a chicken? Two chickens?

Any help/hints appreciated!

	Dirk Husemann


---
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Summary of prices... (PPI, in particular)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:57:33 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Net Digest

gtoal@cursci.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>If anyone wants to update this with better prices and more modems,
>please do.

>Practical P.	405		Action

I got my PM14400FXSA from PC Connection for $399 +shipping, back when it was
so new most folks thought it was vapourware.  I can't really see the prices
going _up_, unless demand's been really high.

>(The only personal experience I've had of any of these is:  twincom - worked
>fine every day since I got it 6 months ago.  Dallas - dead within a week.
>Can't vouch for any of the others.)

I can vouch for the Practical Peripherals... mine's worked flawlessly since
early June in modem mode.  I don't use fax.  Of course, if it _did_ break, it
has a lifetime warranty, so who cares. ;)

-Shag
-- 

     Freedom belongs to only those without video screens for eyes and mouth.
		- Queensryche
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: jfw@technix.mn.org (Jerry Wallace)
Subject: Re: ?'s about Class 1 & Class 2 fax
Organization: Private System - Saint Paul, MN
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:51:32 GMT

Toby Nixon replied:
>Mohit Goyal sez: 
>
>> Is it true Class 2 is not finalized and the current Class 2 modems use
>> a Aug, 1991 spec. that is very different from the current spec?
>
>You're right that Class 2 is not yet finalized.  TIA TR-29 just a 
>couple of weeks ago agreed to send it out for a final, 30-day letter 
>ballot, after which it will be either adopted as TIA-592 or (I
>predict) abandoned if it doesn't pass.  The modems on the market
          ^^^^^^^^^
How does this impact the final ratification of a standard?   Being
somewhat pessimistic, this sounds like a setback.

Thanks.
-- 
Jerry Wallace                    TechNIX, Inc.
Electronic: jfw@technix.mn.org   103 Healy Building
  Acoustic: Installing           2301 Como Avenue
 Ballistic: Hah!                 Saint Paul, MN  55108
From: evanc@uuisis.isis.org (Evan Champion)
Subject: v.fast
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 21:33:27 GMT

So, what is the deal with v.fast?  Does anyone have pre-release specs or 
something of the sort?

Evan