HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Subject: Serial vs. Parallel Modem Interfaces
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:44:45 GMT

In article <clemon.08kw@lemsys.UUCP> clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.053652.9090@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>>In article <clemon.08ii@lemsys.UUCP> clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL) writes:
>>>Lining the bits up single file can
>>>only go so fast.  While we may not have reached this limit with standard
>>>high-speed modem technology yet, there will be other standards (ISDN
>>>perhaps) that will.
>>
>>ISDN is has a serial interface.  And while the fastest serial interface
>>may not be good enough someday, the fastest one I work with right
>>now runs well up into the multimegabit range...  45Mbps.  And I
>>hear of others that are faster.
>
>        OK.  Granted, serial links can be fast once you start shielding the
>path.  You can only go so fast on a serial line before the frequency of the
>bits reaches RF range and cable losses on a normal "twisted pair" become
>significant.  I think the point of the debate centers more around looking
>for a standard solution to replace RS-232C as opposed to arguing actual
>serial vs. parallel concepts.  For simple things like losses in cabling

Why? Conventional modems will not ever exceed the max bandwidth of the
dial-up type of phone line anyway.  For anyone with the cash there are
plenty of other off the shelf solutions.  As far as twisted pair and
shielding issues go, Those limits are already higher by a factor of 1000
over current "state-of-the-art" modem technologies.  RS-422, SCSI and
ethernet, are a few of the existing interfaces that can take you into
the Mega-bit range.  I don't think there will be any non-commercial
megabit per second modems in the near future.  There just isn't enough
demand.  Again Commercial guys may want T3 bandwidth, but for the
average joe, or even a small business this is simply overkill. 


>that I mentioned earlier, the frequencies involved in a parallel bus are
>at least 1/8th what they would be in a serial environment.  That is
>something to consider that is totally separate from servicing the data
>stream at the terminal.

And the bus requirements are more severe.  Cross-talk and cable
capacitance will change 8/16/32 signals instead of 1, etc ad nauseum. 
There are generally lot's of tradeoffs involved either way.  You start
pushing a WHOLE BUNCH of signals on the same cable that are oscillating
at a high rate of speed, and you have 8 times the noise headaches to
contend with.

With TOTAL CPU control parallel is generally cheaper because with an LS
'373 and a decoder you are in business.  2 '373's for a bi-directional
port.  Net cost in the pennies.

-- 
Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: Questions about ZyXEL U-1496x (and others, USR).
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:10:49 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <clemon.08go@lemsys.UUCP> clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL) writes:
>
>        o Do the ZyXEL modems retrain up in speed as well as down to follow
>line conditions (ala ASL from USR), or do they only slow down when
>conditions get bad and a redial is necessary to bring full speed back
>online?

They change rate up and down as line conditions change.

>        o The Questor Project (and someone else) has mentioned that ZyXEL
>now supports a 16.8k standard.  Can someone give me more information on
>this.  Is this a ZyXEL<->ZyXEL hack similar to USR's 16.8k HST protocol
>only full duplex?

It's full duplex, and is proprietary (but not to ZyXEL ... hint, hint).
It is =NOT= HST compatible.

>        o Do you remove the EPROMs, erase and burn with an external
>programmer (assumed) or does the modem actually utilize EEPROM and burn the
>new software on its own in a special mode (I heard this through the
>grapevine and I just want it cleared up)?

The EPROMs contain the code. The EEPROM is used for configuration storage
as in other modems.

>        o Are the ZyXEL modems capable of V.FAST if the firmware is written
>to support it?  Of course, throughput will be limited to 76.8kbps by the
>DTE rate.

The CPU in the current boards may be to slow to handle V.42bis at
V.fast modulation speeds. V.fast support =is= planned, however.

>        o Are there any advantages/disadvantages anyone has to share
>concerning either brand (aside from the HST dual standard issue)?

ZyXEL: proven track record over many months compared to the newcomers.
Special features (security callback, caller ID, etc). Excellent
and dedicated tech support.

>        o How reliable are ZyXEL modems in comparison?  Manufacturer
>support?

Very reliable. The Usenet machine I'm calling from is using them
exclusively for V.32bis dialup and the SLIP connection to the Internet.
Tech support is, in my opinion, without peer in this area.

>        o Are there any known brands that either modem is known to have
>problems establishing a connection with?

ESTABLISHING, no. However, a destructive break sent by a USR V.32bis/V.42
modem will cause loss of carrier. ZyXEL says this is 'their' problem.


-- 
_______________________________Mike Schuster________________________________
NY Pub. Access UNIX/Internet: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew)
Subject: Re: Why not PEP over cellular?
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:42:12 GMT

Something else to keep in mind is that cellular telephones in the
US transmit on a frequency of approximately 900 MHz.  At such a
high frequency, multipath distortion and other signal quality
vaggaries are pretty strong in the case of a moving transciever.
The continuously variable delays and echo intensities effectively
reduce the usable bandwidth.

Fancy digital processing techniques can be applied, but the DSP
window size is going to have to be small enough that rapidly
changing transmission characteristics may be accomodated.

Telebit did or does make a specific model called Cellblazer that
attempts to deal with the issues above.  A regular v.22 or v.32
type modem is likely to have a quite difficult time.


-- 
Bill Mayhew      NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-9995  USA    phone: 216-325-2511
wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu   (140.220.1.1)
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11167 can.uucp:173
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,can.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCP 'g' vs. MNP & V.42
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 13:40:10 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:

> The T2500 won't spoof with v.42.

   Why should it?  You only *need* spoofing if you're using PEP or some other 
half-duplex scheme like Microcom's V.29 modems or USRobotics' HST series.

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
From: lon@edsi.plexus.COM (Lon Ponschock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Has anyone shopped for:ATT Paradyne lately?
Summary: Information request on pricing
Keywords: ATT Paradyne,modem
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:10:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: edsi.1992Jul24.021041.4432
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI


AT&T Paradyne has just released a new retail price for
the Comsphere 3830 modem at $795. The unit is described
extensively in PC Magazine Mar. 17, 1992 (Editor's
Choice.)

Does anyone have a good source for AT&T Paradyne product
direct?  If so, please send mail or post to the group
since this is an important price break.  Previous retail
on this item was $ 1695.  Sheesh.

Thanks.
-- 
   Question Recently
   Posed to the Net:'Kukla, Fran & Ollie' which one is which?
   Answer: Tom Servo is Kukla, Crooow is Ollie and Joel is Fran.
   lon@edsi.plexus.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: hope@huracan.cr (Theodore Hope)
Subject: Re: Telebit Qblazer <-> T2500, anyone?
Organization: Proyecto Huracan - Fundacion Nahual / San Jose, Costa Rica
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12:28:40 CAM

In <vanm=lb.gerg@netcom.com> gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews) writes:

> hope@huracan.cr (Theodore Hope) writes:
> >(I can't, for example,
> >get my T1600 to do uucp spoofing with a T2500, and T'bit acknowledges this
> >as a bug which will probably not be solved anytime soon.)

> For starters, has the T2500 been configured to use V.42 and V.42bis?
> It would be hard to make a V.42/V.42bis connection to a modem that
> has it turned off.  Check the settings of the S97 and S106 registers.

S97=1 and S106=1

I think it's a bug in the T2500.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch)
Subject: Re: 14,400 bps:  Does any comm software support it?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 13:14:22 GMT
Organization: Wayne's World, Inc -- NOT!

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. 

14.4k is generally coupled with v.42bis so that the rate you
will need to talk to your modem goes up. If you're using v.32bis
with v.42bis data compression, you will need to talk to your modem
at 57.6k (which most comm packages DO support). In fact, I think
all modems that have anything higher than 2400 allow you to talk to
the modem at a faster rate than the connection speed of the modem
actually goes. Check your manual for further information.

Hope this helps.



-- 
   Dameon Welch      Santa Clara University Design Center      kc@netcom.com
                    Help, I'm trapped in a .signature file
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: dave@revcan.rct.ca (David Blackwood)
Subject: Re: Help on upgrade to 16550A UART 
Organization: Revenue Canada, Taxation; Office Communications Division
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:31:10 GMT

I've got a two serial plus parallel board made by Lava Computers that
uses Startech Semiconductor ST16C550CP UARTs.  Anyone know anything
about this board or these chips?  I haven't tried the board yet, it just
came in today, but I was expecting it to have NS16550AFN chips.
-- 
D. J. Blackwood		    	Room 1139, 400 Cumberland Street
Manager, Systems Integration   	Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1A 0L8
Office Communications Division	voice: +1 613 957 9305, fax: +1 613 952 1095
Revenue Canada, Taxation    	email: uunet.ca!revcan!dave, dave@revcan.rct.ca
From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Modem tax back
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:11:50 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


scott@nv10.uswnvg.com (Scott Eckelman) writes:

>But why should a customer who only uses the phone 10 minutes a day
>subsidize other customers who are using their modem 2 hours a night?

  Question: If I use my modem two hours a night, how much does it cost
            the phone company?

  Answer:   Nothing.  Zero.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.  A big, fat goose egg.

This is because off-peak calling has no impact on the phone company's
requirement for switching equipment.  Their costs are exactly the same
whether I make the nightly two-hour modem call or not.

In fact, if the ten-minute caller makes his calls during the peak
usage times, his calls _do_ increase the telco's expenses, and it's
the _modem_ caller who's subsidizing the _voice_ caller!

>The answer, in my opinion, is to do away with flat-rate pricing, and
>go to a strictly usage-based one.

The real reason that some local telephone companies are pushing
measured service is that measured service makes it much easier to
overcharge the callers (like our hypothetical modem caller), and
generate monopoly profits.  These profits can then be siphoned off to
the telco's unregulated subsidiaries, fooling the regulators and
leaving the public holding the bag.

Unfortunately, the FCC has already imposed measured-only service for
the local portion of long-distance voice calls.  The 'modem tax' seeks
to extend this to modem callers.  It's wrong for voice, and it's wrong
for modems too.
From: radel@bach.udel.edu (Todd Radel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: PPI 1.14g EPROM available
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:32:32 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Jul29.142802.18769@tware.com> bash@tware.com (Paul Bash) writes:
>Or perhaps it was because, as the original poster indicated, the EPROMS are
>_beta_ code. Most sane companies do not want to put beta code in the hands
>of people who don't know what they are doing (and who probably don't understand
>that that code may cause more problems than it fixes). 
>
>-- 
>Paul Bash                                                   Techware Design 
>bash@tware.com                                              Boulder, CO  U.S.A.

That's probably it.  After I called, someone in this group mentioned that
a finished, non-beta version of the EPROM will be out in a few weeks.
My guess is that PPI simply doesn't want to distribute a beta at this
late date.  But they *will* give it to you if you're persistent enough.

I think it also could simply be a matter of compartmentalization.  The
guys who answer the phones in Tech Support simply might not know that
the EPROM programmers have a new chip ready.

-- 
Todd Radel                   | "I obscenity in the milk of all," Agustin said,
CIS/English undergrad        | "if it does not seem like a lunatic asylum in
University of Delaware       | here." -- Hemingway, _For Whom the Bell Tolls_
A.I. duPont Institute, 1600 Rockland Road, Wilmington, DE  19899
From: gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Boom! You're Dead.
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:45:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>Wrong!  >127 is DISABLED for the escape character.  Thanks for playing.  
>>Go read your modem manual please...... (I have)
>
>>Any sensible implementation of in-band signalling has a way to turn it off.
>
>True, but on *my* modem, I *can* set the escape character to something 
>in the 128-255 range. Telebit T2500 manual page 5-36:
>
>"The S2 register contains the code to be interpreted as the escape
>character. See registers S12 and S55. If S48=0, setting this register to
>a value greater than 127 disables the recognition of the escape character
>by the modem."
>
>So if S48=1, and S2=255 my escape character is 255.
>      ^^^^^

Well certainly, but you can also put gasoline into your diesel car if
you really try.  Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

If your system uses 8N1 or can switch between Even or Odd parity, you
do *NOT* want to set S48=1!!!


-- 
 .------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Greg Andrews   |       UUCP: {amdahl,claris}!netcom!gerg        |
 |                 |   Internet: gerg@netcom.COM                    |
 `------------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: bbs or ftp for Telix ?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:35:52 GMT

In article <mr.712257876@rat> mr@rat.cica.indiana.edu (Michael Regoli) writes:
> In <1992Jul26.061603.21174@crash.cts.com> donm@pnet01.cts.com (Don
> Maslin) writes: 
> 
> >Exis BBS is:    1-416-439-9399
> 
> Does anyone know what version of Telix Exis is shipping to registered
> users?  Is it still 3.15?

I received my registered copy about 2 weeks ago. It was version 3.15.
Information on the telix BBS indicated that the next version will be the last
shareware version. Too many people people are using it without registering, so
they are going to discontinue shareware distribution after V4.0.

If you are using Telix and want it to remain inexpensive and easiliy
accessible - I suggest you register it. 
 
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.
From: defrance@ocpt.ccur.com (Paul De Francesco)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Modem recommendations wanted
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: defrance@ocpt.ccur.com (Paul De Francesco)
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp., Information Systems, Oceanport, NJ


I want to recommend that our company replace our ancient 1200 racal vadic
3481 modems with Telebit Worldblazers.  My reasoning is they are v.32 bis, and
are state of the art as far as I know.   My fear is that once we buy them,
a million people will complain that we should have bought -----.

So, help please.   Any happy worldblazer users?  Any known problems?  Anybody
swear by some other modem?
 
My apologies if this has been discussed before. This is my first experience
with news. I feel like a first time caller to a radio talk show.


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: wolfgang@netcom.com (Wolfgang Henke)
Subject: Digicom Scout Plus modem info
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 00:45:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Update:
I uploaded a comprehensive info file about the new Digicom Systems Scout
series of modems with specs, command set and tests to these fine
computer bulletin boards:

Sound of Music, New York               516 536 8723 DIGSCOUT.ZIP
Goldfields, South Africa           +27 171 84102    SCOUT.ZIP
nibbelbox, Bonn, Germany           +49 228 630872   SCOUT.ZIP
Compuphile, PA                         814 337 0501 DIGSCOUT.ZIP
Easy Access, San Ramon, CA             510 829 6027 SCOUT.ZIP
Higher Powered, Sunnyvale, CA          408 737 7040 SCOUT.ZIP
Toadhall, San Carlos, CA               415 595 2427 SCOUT.ZIP
Seahunt, San Francisco, CA             415 431 0473 DIGICOM.ZIP
Channel 1, Cambridge, MA               617 354 3230 DIGSCOUT.ZIP
Boardwatch, Colorado                   313 973 4222 SCOUT.ZIP
Netcom, San Jose, CA                   408 241 9760 ~wolfgang/pub/scout
Hackers Unlimited, Ohio                216 366 1935 SCOUT.ZIP
Abject Poverty, GA                     404 907 4361 DIGSCOUT.ZIP
Coconino County, San Francisco, CA     415 431 0227 SCOUT.ZIP
Windows Online, Danville, CA           510 736 8343 SCOUT.ZIP
Vidgame, San Bruno, CA                 415 742 6441 (soon)
Turbo-BBS, Buenos Aires, Argentina +54 1 52 1057    SCOUT.ZIP
Window World, Indiana                  219 258 5360 SCOUT.ZIP
Rough Draft, Culver City, CA           310 477 6163 SCOUT.ZIP
Programmers Workshop, CA               805 529 5671 DIGSCOUT.ZIP

I hope there is one in your area.

Also, the Usenet offer for this modem is still available. Please email
for the details. Briefly, its a V.32bis 14,400 bps data and Group 3 fax
modem with software for $299 for the internal and $310 for the external.

The modem is used on five continents now: Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe
and North America. 


-- 
   _________________________________________________________________________
   Wolfgang Henke        wolfgang@henke.sf-bay.org       wolfgang@netcom.com
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Zyxel - which Buadrate?
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:51:36 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1B62634FDR@tron.gun.de> laubfrosch@tron.gun.de (Dieter Rosenhagen) writes:
>Am 15.07.92 um 12:01 schrieb S_SCHORR%iravcl.ira.uka.de@USENET.ZER unter dem Betreff Zyxel - which Buadrate?:
>
>-> From: S_SCHORR@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Roland Schorr)
>-> Subject: Zyxel - which Buadrate?
>-> Message-ID: <0tp'>e7j2	hF
>y<Ed	[*[l)/2fOt
Mok+!^QA<ARRqVTJd!\sa)0kK
>u[k<G5`i^$b2=5\9"[HXf/GSkafZ\Cug
>lKzw9nHgRG}|HJq\l2ZIX$y:V}~y^rI@s[[%Ig08B5O!
eO=EC
>+m_{(`pqY8V6[h?a7C'37R4:aM-@	c)1@|#ED-3&Vd@Lu!-Pf`{:uH_G>a).PaB;[/S;_y!at<tbq4EJ32>e.>L	{GoQTA~,H+w:Ok)
hHGFg
>uR7->-(FH{o{4'>;;w^'$J&_*U3'3Bn{q{^4F$a_V.a	|*/.W|`sF7jW0S98T
>oVRx8e`2qs9rYu|~c@G?L}zfs&.+8o5m>rJSK#V{N4TECvmts`LCmhzD"d4mwBNpJH[vK
><R;~[zUS-Robotics 16.800.
>
>Bye,
>Laubfrosch.
>
>>>>LAUBFROSCH - ZERBERUS-POINT FROM A.U.G.E. 4000 - DUESSELDORF,FRG<<<
>02181/82208 >TRON< | Fast (?) alle Netze | 030/660MB/HST_DS
>-- THE ANSWER V2.03





This is a perfect example of what happens when two modems think they've
negotiated different MNP levels and try to talk.

:-)

-- 
_______________________________Mike Schuster________________________________
NY Pub. Access UNIX/Internet: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V32bis with V42bis Screen Updates
From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:39:25 GMT
Organization: GCS Limited, Wellington, New Zealand
Keywords: V32bis V42bis

In article <l4pm3ml.genie@netcom.com> genie@netcom.com (The Genie) writes:
>In article <mr.712504629@rat> mr@rat.cica.indiana.edu (Michael Regoli) writes:
>>In <1992Jul30.105522.12527@actrix.gen.nz>
>>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes: 
>>
>>>In article <Bs6DCo.F4n@animal.gcs.co.nz> lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz
>>(Laurence Chiu) writes: 
>>	[stuff deleted]
>>
>>I agree--Telix works pretty fast.
>>
>>However, you should also consider replacing your DOS ANSI.SYS with
>>something faster like NNANSI.SYS (available from Simtel, Wuarchive,
>>etc).  This will speed up your screen two-fold, possibly faster.  (And
>>if you use Telix, you should have it configured for direct screen
>>writes (Alt-O,S,<Enter> regardless.)
>
>Why do you even bother loading an ansi driver when using Telix?  Telix
>has it's own driver when it loads, and therefore doesn't need
>a separate driver.  Why waste memory and speed?
>
>Gene


As do Procomm+ and Telemate apparently since I get Ansi graphics when
logging onto BBS that support this and I do not use ansi.sys.

Laurence Chiu

Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:10899 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:20048