HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 00:42:58 EDT
From: James <IO92142@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Digital Telephony/FBI?

Hi.  I ran across this article in MacWeek, and I would like to know
if there is anyone who is following these current issues?
Any responses via email will be greatly appreciated.
Digital Telephony-MacWeek-7.12.92

Washington

The FBI has sharpened language in proposed legislation that would require
government wiretap access to all U.S. voice and data networks.

The proposal, known as Digital Telephony, is a response to new telephone
technology, which the FBI claims makes eavesdropping more difficult.  The new
draft includes and explicit call for law enforcement monitoring facility with
remote access to every voice and data network in the country.  The FBI also
called for the Federal Communications Commission to relinquish its
standards-setting and device-certification authority to the U.S. Attorney
General, who could force wiretap-secure networks open with fines of up to
$10,000 a day.

The FBI told computer and communications industry leaders that its wiretap
shopping list includes access to all present and future network technologies,
including Ethernet, X.25, cellular networks and Electronic Data Interchange
systems.

"In its current form Digital Telephony would open the entire universe to
wiretaps," said Don Gilbert, information services directory at the Washington,
D.C.- based American Petroleum Institute.  He is among 40 industry leaders
opposing the proposal.

The bill still has not found a sponsor on Capitol Hill.  Nevertheless, the FBI
has not backed down.

Attorney Mike Godwin, counsel to the Cambridge, Mass.-based Electronic Frontier
Foundation, said the FBI remained adamant because Digital Telephony is a
backhanded attempt to prevent the use of encryption on U.S. networks.  The
Department of Justice, the FBI's parent agency, launched anti encryption
legislation in 1991, Senate Bill 266, which did not pass.

"They are asking for an outrageous level of access because they can back down on
the condition that a ban be placed on encryption," Godwin said.
"It leaves us where we would have been if S.B. 266 has passed."

=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=
James Gray                           Bitnet   :  IO92142@Maine
University of Maine                  Internet :  IO92142@Maine.Maine.Edu

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: andchan@newton.amath.umanitoba.ca (Andrew Chan)
Subject: Help on antique modem needed
Organization: Applied Mathematics, U of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:58:56 GMT

I inheritted a 1200 external modem made by a company called EMP,
the modem is called EMP Auto 1200A.  The problem is that it doesn't
seem to be Hayes compatible and there are 8 DIP switches at the back
and I have no idea what they do.

If someone happens to know something about this modem, please do let
me know.

Yes, I have faster modems but I want to use this as a backup dial-in
modem for a Unix system.

-- 
We are a rare as well as an endangered species.  Every one of us is,
in the cosmic perspective, precious.  If a human disagrees with you,
let him live.  In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.
							- Carl Sagan
From: acct069@carroll1.cc.edu (Ron Higgins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: USR Bulletin board number
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:35:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: carroll1.3256
Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc.

In article <Bs0227.A9J@trauma.rn.com> larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>what is the USR BBS number to order the modems
>on the SYSOP pricing?
>
>Larry Snyder

USR's BBS # is: 1-708-982-5092

You can not only order modems on the sysop discount from this BBS, but it
also carries some high-speed modem discussion conferences.

-- 
Ron                      | Lightning Systems, INC. | Apple // Forever!
acct069@carroll1.cc.edu  | (414) 363-4282  62megs  | Van Halen Rules! 
carroll1!acct069@uwm.edu | 14.4k HST/V.32bis       | Bill & Ted are cool!
From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Good cheap V.32bis?
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:07:55 GMT
Organization: Cray Research Superservers Inc., San Diego CA, USA

Among many people I know, I seem to be considered a modem expert.

foo. (feh?)...

Anyway, another friend of mine wants to know what are the brands/
models/prices/vendors of some good cheap V.32bis modems?  I've
heard of a few.  What seems to be popular here?  I see a lot of
stuff about Supra, Zyxel and Zoom but not all of it is that good.

--Bill Davidson
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Serial and Parallel interface ??????
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 23:11:20 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doc) writes:

> >With the usual cable used for parallel ports speeds of between 500 kbyte
> >and 1 Mbyte/second could easily be achieved
>
> *sigh* unfortunately Ive just never been able to get that to work. :( >

   Neither have I, but 40K/second (or thereabouts) is more common.  The async 
serial equivalent would be ~400 kbps, nearly four times the 8250/16450/16550's 
maximum bit rate.

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: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Alan Gilbertson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Boom! You're Dead.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:43:06 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230

Wednesday July 22 1992, Marc Unangst writes:

 MU> 1. Hayes used to be a big-league modem maker.  Now they're being
 MU> upstaged by other companies, like Telebit and USR.

In fact, Hayes' share of the modem market has increased over the years.

The idea that Hayes is being beat up by USR and Telebit is a popular
but unsubstantiated myth. -- Mostly promulgated in Ziff-Davis rags
and circles where USR (BBSes) and Telebit (Usenet) are common.



--  
Internet: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP: ...!myrddin!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to
     root@psycho.fidonet.org.
From: lipkis@parc.xerox.com (Tom Lipkis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: UUCP window size
Keywords: uucp, window
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:14:56 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

yanagida@ole.cdac.com (Bruce A. Yanagida) writes:

>I have a stock Sun Sparcstation 2 running SunOS4.1.1 with the stock Sun
>provided UUCP software (a Honey Danber variant).  I have recently
>installed two new Telebit WorldBlazer modems for UUCP.  I believe I may
>be running into problems with the UUCP window size setting.  Does
>anyone know what the default setting for SunOS UUCP is?  Is it 7?  If
>so, how can I patch it to 3 if I wanted to experiment?

I have essentially the same configuration, and PEP and UUCP spoofing appear
to work fine with no changes to UUCP.  The default (maximum) window size is
indeed 7 (the sun sends "INITA 7"), but the modem responds with "INITA 3"
and everything appears to work.  (I get 1910-1960 cps with no compression;
I wonder why that isn't closer to 2300.)

From what I had read here I originally assumed I was going to have to change
the window size, so I put
	systemname Any ACU,g(3,64) Any ...
in Systems, as someone suggested here a couple weeks ago.  According to the
trace, uucico recognized that syntax (said something like "Protocol set to
g(3,64)") but then ignored it, sending "INITA 7" as it had always done.

(A similar thing happens if I specify the retry time with "any;1:.  It
acknowledges the 1 minute retry timeout in the trace, but then sets the
retry timer to 5 minutes anyway.)

Tom Lipkis
Pacific Software Solutions
lipkis@pss.com
From: dmiller@im.lcs.mit.edu (Dick and Jill Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Why is Zoom (Infotel may NOT be Zoom)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 12:28:54 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Repeat item: Infotel modems may NOT be Zoom modems, even when you can "tell 
so from the ads."  Months ago, I pointed out that Infotel modems are often 
advertised based on the preliminary assumption that Infotel will relabel 
one manufacturer's modem; but then Infotel actually contracts with a 
different manufacturer while leaving the original ad wording and photo.  
Thus, don't assume that a given Infotel modem is really by Zoom; you may 
find that it is from GVC or others.  We no longer trust these assumptions, 
by us OR BY THEIR SALES REP.
 
Hope this eliminates some confusion.
 
--Dick Miller
 
A. Richard & Jill A. Miller            | Miller Microcomputer Services |
InterNet: dmiller@im.lcs.mit.edu       | 61 Lake Shore Road            |
Voice: 508/653-6136, 9am-9pm EasternTZ | Natick, MA 01760-2099, USA    |
From: bertoldi@macondo.Princeton.EDU (Frank Bertoldi)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Infotel V.32bis Fax/Modem
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:18:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

Does anyone have anything to say about the MidWest Micro
Infotel V.32bis Fax/Modem which sells for $269 (ext) and thus
appears to be the cheapest 32bis modem on the market -
unless someone can point to a cheaper one.

It has V32bis MNP5 V42bis etc, group 2+3 V.29 fax, 7 yrs 
warranty.

Any comments?

------------------------------------
Frank Bertoldi
bertoldi@astro.princeton.edu
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Cordless Modems
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 23:59:54 EDT
Organization: Izot's Swamp

prashant@ca.merl.com (Prashant Avashia) writes:

> I am thinking that it has a "base unit" hooked to the kitchen wall
> and the "portable unit" hooked to the modem (connected to the PC)
> maybe in another room. I know, it could be expensive compared to the
> 75ft extension cord, but that does not matter to this individual.
> 
> Does anything such as a cordless modem exist, or is it the end of my
> options on this issue.

   If such a beast does exist, it would be much more expensive than getting a 
jack installed wherever your friend would like to work.

   Let's not get carried away finding hi-tech solutions to simple problems!  
Somtimes the low-tech solution is more appropriate.

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: swinokur@pbs.org
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: What to set COMM speed for V32bis Modems 
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:11:13 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

In article <BrtBxD.Ks1@animal.gcs.co.nz>, lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu) writes:
> This is probably a simple question but here goes... If you have a v32bis
> modem and you wish to dial another one, what do you set your comms speed to?
> Using Procomm+ I could not find a setting for 14.4 but 9600 19.2. In fact
> the modem responded to AT command at 19.2 even though I have never been able
> to connect at any speed yet.
> 
> Laurence Chiu

Larry, depends on the modem's cpability. Most v32bis modems will do 38400 and   
some can do 57600. I would set your port at 38400. That will get you maximum 
speeds on zip file transfers and will allow pretty near maximum on text files
or uncompressed binary. If the modem supports 57600, then set that as your
speed in your Procomm directory.  Also use ALT P to set your port speed if
you dial from the terminal screen.
Stu Winokur
Public Broadcasting Service
Alexandria Virginia   
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: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:46:46 GMT

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

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.

|MNP-4 is link-layer protocol that retries erroneous packets.  UUCP 'g'
|is a link-layer protocol that retries erroneous packets.  Guess what
|-- the don't get along very well!

Why not?  The 'g' protocol would just never (or very rarely; only in
modem-to-computer failures) see failures.  In my case, where the 'g'
protocol isn't spoofed at the modem, and has to go all the way to the
computer, that's a win.

|...  [V.42bis, MNP-5, and LZ are all variants of the Lempel-Ziv
|compression algorithm, though most implementations of MNP-5 *reduce*
|throughput with pre-compressed data, and each have varying degrees of
|efficiency and ratios of compression.]

It's my understanding that all MNP-5 implementations will sometimes
reduce throughput of some pre-compressed data because the compression
is always done; it's not dependent on the implementation, but on the
data.  This is unlike V.42bis, where if the compressed block is larger
than the original, the uncompressed block is sent.
From: clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re:    Serial and Parallel interface ??????
Distribution: world
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:15:34 EDT
Organization: Private UUCP "Twig" Node

In article <1992Jul24.015453.19377@ksmith.uucp> keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
>Hahaha,
>
>Can you say ETHERNET, TOKEN RING?  All SERIALLY transmitted data.

Hahahahaha, yes I can.  Can you say SHIELDED CABLE, RF FREQUENCIES?  Maybe
you can also say HIGH-PERFORMANCE DEDICATED PROCESSORS or ISA BUS
CONNECTION?

>Not Likely ISDN is gonna fly past 10 Mbits/sec, but I will agree that
>"standard" RS-232 is not going to go much past 115K.

        The way I understand it, ISDN is currently a 64kbps scheme.  It may
have been updated to 128kbps by now (yes? no?).  ISDN is also not "local
area" and must be considered quite different than Ethernet or RS-232.  It
is going to be significantly slower than anything local, that can be taken
for granted.  Utilizing ethernet allows a good LAN/WAN interface to an ISDN
"encoder" as well as guaranteed throughput.

>-- 
>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 ...

--
 Craig Lemon VE3XCL - Kitchener, Ontario. Amiga B2000  OS 2.04  UUCPv1.15D.
 +1 519 741 0297    +1 519 578 7817              | 1A Electrical Engineering
 clemon@lemsys.UUCP clemon%lemsys@xenitec.on.ca  | University of Waterloo
 IP/Packet: ve3xcl@ve3xcl.ampr.org [44.135.84.51]|        Fall 1992
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Subject: Re: Telebits and TIES (was: Re: Boom! Our lawyer are tougher...)
Organization: Private system -- Orlando, FL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:29:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.135620.7023@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>>If you type
>>+++ with appropriate guard time, you will get an OK prompt.  However,
>>if you subsequently type any character which is not a valid AT command,
>>the modem will issue the CONNECT string and go back online.
>
>This doesn't sound like TIES at all, since the WB still uses the guard
>time.

Well, it does, and it doesn't.  The feature I mentioned above was one I
stumbled upon by experimenting; it's not in the manual that I can find.
The manual (the WorldBlazer addendum) effectively says TIES is used:

"An escape sequence contains three consecutive escape characters [...]
followed by a valid AT command.  For example, [...] +++ATH"

Contrast this with the T3000's description:

"An escape sequence contains three consecutive escape characters [...]
separated from other characters by a guard time [...]"

The WorldBlazer behaves as documented in its manual, but it also
behaves in the manner described in the T3000 manual with the
"enhancement" of going back online if no valid AT command is detected.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP  (jwt!john@peora.sdc.ccur.com)
From: zeke@fasttech.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Date: 18 Jul 92 02:51 MDT
Subject: Re: Boom! You're Dead.
Nf-ID: #R:tymix.tymnet.com:2043:1992Jul17.225138.9123@fasttech.u:-691377731:001:1823
Nf-From: fasttech.uucp!zeke    Jul 18 02:51:00 1992


In article <5779.2a65bd35@hayes.com> tnixon@hayes.com writes:
>Sure.  It is referring to some of the modems currently on the market 
>that use what is call "TIES", a "time independent escape sequence".  
>Such modems will escape from online state to command state whenever 
>you send a certain fixed pattern of characters, regardless of 
>whether or not there is a "guard time" (no characters transmitted) 
>before and after the sequence.

Thanks for confirming everyone's fears about the F.U.D. ad. I appreciate and
respect your technical postings. However, I hope that, should I ever work at
a company aggressively litigating silly patents, that I could still maintain
my independent objectivity.

IMO, this patent is obvious and dumb. But that's already been said by plenty
of people. In contrast, having an industry standard AT command set is a good
outcome of Hayes' early dominance of the low cost modem market.

I just wanted to point out something that a few people might not immediately
remember. This +++ escape can be turned off for many modems. In fact, I started
turning it off in my modem almost immediately after I tried it the first time I
was online interactively. Because what happens is that the escape gets echoed
by the remote system and then BOTH modems drop into command mode. And it may
not be easy to get the remote modem back into data mode.

I've run happily for years without having any need for the +++ escape.
UUCP doesn't need it and neither does interactive use. It's unfortunate that
this very simple fact will be obscured by a big-bucks media blitz. Couldn't
Hayes spend the money on R&D instead and maybe contribute something more useful
to mankind?

Of course, somebody probably has the "reset modem on DTR drop" feature patented
too, so if one patent doesn't get you, another one will.
From: rusu@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (LMRusu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZOOM V.32bis and UART 16450 question SUMMARY
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:09:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

A few days ago I posted an article about my external Zoom V.32bis. I appreciate
all the responses I received, thanks to everyone.

The modem was not working properly because it was plugged into a serial port
with a 16450 chip on it. So if you buy an external Zoom V.32bis you absolutely
need a serial port with a 16550 chip. 

Yesterday I exchanged the external modem for an internal one from Zoom also. 
This one has a 16550 chip on the modem card. So far,it works well connecting, 
uploading and downloading but the self tests in the manual using the command 
&T still give an error. 

Here are two of the answers I received:

Leonard Nisenoff writes,

 It's very posible that the problem is the 16450.  I have the same modem
 (ROM 1.2) and a 16550 UART and have no problems.  My friend bought one
 and the fasted I could push it was 19.2 before we got data lose.  The
 one character buffer on the 16450 dosen't cut it.

 Not only do you probably need a 16550, be sure that your software
 supports the chip

Steve Davis writes,

 >Do you think that there is something wrong with this brand new modem?
 >I use COM2 on a serial port with a UART 16450 on it and Procomm+ as the 
 >communications software.  

 You might also check the serial cable.

 >Also  when I try doing the Local Analog Loopback Test (AT &Q0 &T1) from the 
 >manual , I get ERROR instead OK.

 You must have the 1.2 ROM's.  I can't get the loopback tests to
 work with my Infotel (Zoom distributed by Midwest Micro).  You will
 get the error from any &T command, I believe.


--
From: mo@sdf.lonestar.org (Mohit Goyal)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Hayes Optima 144 FaxModem.  When?
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:38:56 GMT
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access

Hello.  

Does *anyone* have any idea when Hayes is going to release their
Optima 14.4k FaxModem?

I know the official press release says the 3rd quarter, which is now
1/3rd over, but I am looking for a more specific date.

Is it coming out in August, September, has it been delayed to the 4th
quarter?  I am planning on waiting until this modem comes out so I can
buy it, obviously. :)

Unfortunently, I have to buy my modem before I leave for school and if
someone can tell me for sure or not if the Optima is coming out before
8-31-92 please reply.  If not, I will go ahead and purchase another
brand.  

Thank you.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: radel@bach.udel.edu (Todd Radel)
Subject: R&S Data Systems
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:16:47 GMT

Just got my new I/O card from R&S Data Systems in Florida.  (Their
price chart was posted here last week.)  I ordered a 2S/1P/1G card,
with one 16550 and one 16450, for $26.95. Imagine my surprise when
I found *two* NS16550AFN UART's on the card!  But who's complaining...
The two 16550's alone would cost over $20 anywhere else!

I also noticed, as someone mentioned earlier, that the newer 16550's
are also carrying the designation PC16550 above the old NSxxx.

If you're in the market for a new card, give 'em a call at
(407) 331-1424.  I'm not saying they'll "accidentally" give you
an extra 16550 ... but you never know!

Cheers,
Todd

-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Telebit modems
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:34:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.061507.10850@proponent.com> Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com> writes:
>In article <9guyNB3w164w@uuisis.isis.org> evanc@uuisis.isis.org (Evan Champion)  
>writes:
>> Could someone tell me which Telebit model has both v32bis and PEP (I know 
>> the WorldBlazer has v32bis and SuperPEP, but I can't afford it)
>
>The T3000 and WorldBlazer are the only models that have V.32bis and PEP.

The T3000 only has V.32bis, V.32, V.22bis, etc...  Only the
WorldBlazer has V.32bis and PEP (it also has EPEP).


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com
Andrew Loewenstern      | "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
Cube Technologies, Inc. |  If I am only for myself, who am I?" -Hillel
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: prall968@Armstrong.EDU
Subject: Concord 224
Organization: Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:39:43 GMT

Does anyone out there have any info..(ANY!) on a Concord Data Systems 224
modem.. I have no idea what baud/error-correction it is..
Or what command set it uses.. If anyone has any idea please reply via E-Mail

Gene Prall
prall968@pirates.armstrong.edu

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu)
Subject: V32bis with V42bis Screen Updates
Keywords: V32bis V42bis
Organization: GCS Limited, Wellington, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:00:18 GMT

I just got a V32bis modem with V42bis. I call up a few local BBS and
have been able to get >1600cps download speeds with zip files. This
sounds about the norm. However I was under the impression that with
text files, I should with the V42bis compression get 38400 or better.
Thus when I am reading stuff like News or Fidonet etc. the screen
updates should be blindingly fast if both sides are doing compression.
This does not happen. My screen updates (admittedly using ANSI
graphics) seem more like 9600 speed. This is under DOS using PC+.
What I am doing wrong or are my expectations incorrect.
Thanks for the help.

Laurence Chiu




Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems