HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: 16550 vs. 16550AFN 
From: eputnam@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:19:18 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City


I was just wondering if any modem manufactures (or anyone) would still be
putting 16550 chips on their internal modems.  The reason I ask this is that
I am planning on purchasing an internal 14.4kbs modem and plan to use it with
both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1.  As I understand, the 16550 is defective and
the chip to have is the 16550AFN.  Is this correct?  If so, do I need to make
absolutely sure that I am getting an "AFN" chip, or am I safe with any modem
which claims to have a 16550?

Thanks for any help.

Eric L. Putnam
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:12371 biz.comp.telebit:844
From: xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
Subject: Re: WB hangs occasionally
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:09:26 GMT
Organization: Dr Pepper Company/The Seven-Up Company, Dallas


I've got two WB's that I just upgraded to 5.01 and one of them is exhibiting
the same symptoms.  Every so often it just hangs off-line and it takes a
power cycle to clear it.

Very annoying on a rotary pool.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Harris - MIS				xmpcwsh@dp7up.com
Dr Pepper/The Seven-Up Company			The opinions expressed are my
Dallas, Texas  					own. (emphasis on the period)
From: claes@sparc2.ikb.uni-essen.de (Heinz-Josef Claes)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: MNP5-Modem and Sparc
Keywords: Modem, Sparc
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:25:45 GMT
Organization: University of Essen, Germany



What have I to do, to connect a hayes-compatible MNP5-Modem at a SparcStation
for incoming calls?
The type of the modem is DISCOVERY 2400BPS.

Thanks in advance.

Please email to me.
Internet: claes@sparc2.ikb.uni-essen.de
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rdc@pelican.cit.cornell.edu (Bob Cowles)
Subject: AT recognition problems
Summary: Modem doesn't recognize AT if line speed above 9600
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:48:56 GMT
Organization: Cornell Info. Tech.
Keywords: AT 19200

I have tried two different Zoom Vfx modems and several different 
serial cables on a PS/2-80 and I cannot get consistent recognition
of the at command at serial port speeds above 9600.  The modems 
seem to work fine at the other end (an RS/6000 running AIX 3.1.6)
in terms of responding to an at command regardless of the speed.
I have tried running both DOS and OS/2 on the machine with the same 
result.  Running a hardware information program on the machine turns
up the result that it has an 16450 UART.

I was unable to run any of the other Fax software that came with the
modem (Winfax 2.0 and METZ), so I purchased FaxIt (aka PMFax).  When
PMFax failed I was able to turn on it's tracing mode and discovered
that even whenI told the config that the port was 9600, PMFax would
initialize at 2400 and then switch to 19200 for the dialing and 
transmission ... since the modem only recognizes about 50% of the
at commands at that speed, the probability of getting a complete
transmission at that speed is really remote.  In data mode, if I can
get it to understand the atdtnnnnnnn command, then I'm OK ... but that
often requires entering the command several times.  One other bit of
information is that if the at command is recognized, the "sd" light
will flicker when I press enter at then end of the command, if the 
command is not recognized then no light, no response, nothing.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreaciated.

Bob Cowles
rdc1@cornell.edu

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: SupraFaxModem v.32bis for sale
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:38:10 GMT

sep@netcom.com (Scott Pendleton) writes:

>For sale:

>SupraFaxModem v.32bis Modem
>Data and Fax modem
>4 months old
>Supports 14,400(v.32bis), 9600(v.32), 2400(v.22bis),
>    1200(v.22), 300(v.21) bauds
>MNP Classes 2-5 and 10
>CCITT V.42 (LAPM) and V.42bis(BTLZ)
>Throughput upto 57,600 bps
>Fax specifications: Group 3, 9600 & 14,400 bps send & rec.
>Class 1 and Class 2 software compatible
>Under Warranty and eligible for free ROM upgrade coming
>     at the end of the month
>FaxSTF software included (Macintosh)
>HWHS cable for a Macintosh computer included
>I'm selling it for finance a Telebit WorldBlazer purchase!
>Asking $300.00

these modems are available locally for $290 from Tenex Computer
products (in South Bend, IN) brand new.  Why in earth should someone
give $300 for a used modem when a new one is cheaper?

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
From: tnixon@hayes.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: LAPM vs MNP on good lines - which is best?
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:13:04 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Aug12.195146.23733@news.uit.no>,
borgen@stud.cs.uit.no (Boerge Noest) writes: 

> Which of MNP4 and LAPM has the least overhead when used on good
> connections?

That depends on the LAPM implementation.  MNP4 and LAPM both have 
the same number of bytes of overhead per frame, so the real question 
is which can send larger frames (since the large the frame, the 
lower the overhead per byte).  MNP4 can send a maximum of 256, and 
that is also the default frame size.  LAPM can send a maximum of 
4096, but the default (and only mandatory max size) is 128.  Many 
modems can be configured to request larger than 128 (Hayes modems, 
for example, can go up to 512 bytes per frame).  So, it really 
depends on your modem and what it will accept as a maximum frame 
size.

Also, I should mention that the argument above applies to 
unidirectional data transfer.  If you're doing bidirectional data 
transfer, LAPM has the additional advantage of being able to do 
piggybacked acknowledgements, while MNP4 requires a separate 
acknowledgement frame.

Anyway, there's no simple, single answer to your question.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11987 comp.unix.ultrix:6204
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Usr Dual Connect PEP machines HELP!!
Keywords: PEP Help
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:10:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug22.061057.20060
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

u911661@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mad Mal) writes:

>Australian approved Usr Dual, having problems connecting to NetComm(Australian)
>PEP machines.

If the PEP modems *don't* support V.32 then you need to call at 2400.

Also, be sure to use X3. At X4 and higher, USR modems will cheerfully
mis-identify a PEP handshake as VOICE, and terminate the call!

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: bash@tware.com (Paul Bash)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Telebit Tech Support
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:53:51 GMT
Organization: Techware Design, Boulder, Colorado.


Well, after pissing and moaning a couple of months ago in this newsgroup about 
Telebit's policy of charging $$$ for EPROM upgrades unless you could _prove_ 
you were having a problem the EPROM fixed, I feel that in all fairness I need to
relate the following:

Last week I read here about the availability of the LA5.01 EPROMs 
for the Worldblazer. The most important fix in this EPROM, for me, was the 
ability to use packet and window sizes other than 3 and 64, respectively, 
while spoofing UUCP. 

So, when I heard about the new EPROM, I steeled myself for an expected
grilling from tech support about the problems I was having. I worked out the 
details of my story and dialed 1-800-telebit. It took a while for us to quit 
playing phone tag but eventualy I spoke with a human being. I told him that 
I had two WorldBlazer's and was interested in getting the LA5.01 upgrade EPROMs
for them. I sort of vaguely mentioned the UUCP spoofing bug without going 
into details. The tech took my name, verified my address and assured me the 
EPROMS were on their way. The _next morning_ they showed up on my doorstep.
They had been sent Federal Express Overnight. No charge. I was suitably
impressed!

I sincerly hope this is an indication of a change in Telebit's position on
EPROM upgrades. My Telebit modems (previously T3000s and now WorldBlazers)
have been rock solid, except for the UUCP spoofing problem. The two things
that has kept me from recommending them to others was the premium price
and their EPROM upgrade policies (i.e. I shouldn't have to _prove_ I'm
experiencing a known problem to get a free fix for it. A problem is a 
problem, dammit!). Time will tell, but this "new attitude" I'm seeing looks 
very promising. The 1-800 support number, knowledgeable support people, 
overnight shipping are all worth the premium price. Not having to grovel
to prove I'm deserving of this excellent, free, support is wonderful indeed.  
 
-- 
Paul Bash                                                   Techware Design 
bash@tware.com                                              Boulder, CO  U.S.A.
From: work@tasha.guug.de (Felix Blank)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: real or imagined differences in phone networks worldwide
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:09:57 GMT

jroth@aegis.or.jp (Joel Roth) writes:

>Could any phone/modem gurus give me an idea of just how different
>phone network characteristics are worldwide with regard to modem
>compatibility and safety?

>And how really different are modems approved for different countries?

>Are the differences simply to satisfy bureaucrats, or do they affect
>how the modems operate in a significant way?

One story from Germany: the PTT (Telekom) force all high speed modems
to have a protection against redialing. After 12 unsuccessfull attempts,
because the line beeing busy, the modem _must_ refuse further dial
commands!
Nice, isn't it? :-)

Felix
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Blank                                 Internet   : felix@tasha.guug.de
Germany, Munich                             CompuServe : 76334,3373
Fax: +49-89-8206074
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZyXEL: Firmware 5.00, voice capabilities
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:58:22 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <schneck.713739658@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE> schneck@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernhard Schneck) writes:
>schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) writes:
>
>>>Where can I found a voice program to transform my ZyXEL in a answering machine?
>
>>It's in beta test, as is the firmware you "received".
>
>Will this be PC/MS-DOS binary only stuff or are the interfaces documented,
>so that you can develop your own SW?

Yes, the interface is documented very thoroughly.

>Will the documentation be as good as the Class2 FAX doc?  *YUCK*

Ahem...
-- 
_______________________________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
From: Zero.One@p6.f356.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: ZyXEL 16,800 and voice-mail
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Aug 21 1992
Date: 19 Aug 92  09:13:14

 > Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
 > From: mckeeveb@monashee.sfu.ca (Gumby - The unknown user)
 > Message-ID: mckeeveb.714196863@sfu.ca
 > Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems

 > aaron@spectrx.saigon.com (Aaron Anderer - System) writes:

 >>Zero.One@p6.f356.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:

 >>> ZyXEL's 16.8k is an extention of V.32bis and as of this writing, it can
on
 > ly
 >>> connect to another.  We have been in contact with other modem
manufacturer
 > s i
 >>> regards to implementing it into their modems.
 >>>
 >>> Tyrone Horton
 >>> (Zero One)
 >>> Tech Support
 >>> ZyXEL USA
 >>well please talk to Supra about this.  I'm not sure if it is possible to
 >>push the rockwell 14.4k chipset to 16.8, but remember that the 9600 chipset
 > was
 >>able to go up to 12k.  <sigh> I want a faster modem.

 > And how about DallasFAX too?  I wouldn't mind (er, read want
 > desperately)
 > the extra speed.
If enough DallasFax owners request it, maybe DallasFax will implement it.

Tyrone Horton
(Zero One)
Tech Support
ZyXEL USA


--- TosScan 1.00
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk)
Subject: DSP chips.  Where can I find good ones?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:01:14 GMT

     Does anyone know of any reliable (and inexpensive) suppliers of the
DSP chips:

                  DS2132A/Q -- Digital Answering Machine Processor
                  DS2167/8  -- ADPCM Processor Chip

or perhaps of better alternatives?
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: USR Fires Sysop Deal Bozo?
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:59:04 GMT

clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL) writes:
>        Can anybody clarify (perhaps someone who has been through this
>already) clarify whether a UseNet node qualifies for the SYSOP deal?

They have to be able to dial into your system to verify its status.
When I tried to buy USR modems, they sent me a note saying they couldn't
figure out how to login.

That guy must have been a real winner!

-- 
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us                      ESIX Mailing List Moderator
Public Access UNIX/USENET/E-MAIL!  UUCP Accounts Available!  (508) 655-3848
5 lines  -  Located in Natick, MA   USA    Supporting V.32/PEP/V.42bis, etc.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: modem schematics
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:03:16 GMT

Mary.Hicks@f222.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG writes:

>Currently I am interested in Building My own modem (any speed will do),
>but in order to learn, I need to start off with some MODEM SCEMATICS.
>Can someout there please e-mail me some addresses of companies, that
>sell MODEM SCEMATICS? This would be very helpful to me. Does radio shack
>sell MODEM SCEMATICS? THANKS!

Sorry, but you *can't* do that. To legally hook it to the phone system,
it has to be FCC approved. And *you* would have to be an FCC licensed
technician.

*IF* you can find a source for an FCC approved DAA (Data Access
Arrangement) then you could hook up through it. DAAs are basicly a
"black box" for interfacing unlicensed gear to the phone system.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (The Mad Hatter)
Subject: BOCA modems 
Summary: BOCA modems
Organization: Dept. of CS, Middle TN State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:44:06 GMT

Can anyone tell me what chipset the new v32/v32bis/v42/v42bis
external fax/modems from BOCA use?  Thanks.

- John W.

-- 
John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
        Graduate Computer Science Student
        Middle Tennessee State University
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: WB connections with SupraFAX with v.32bis
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:13:51 GMT

We have a couple of WorldBlazer modems here locked at 38400 with hardware
flow control --

and one of the sites we connect to has a pair of SupraFAX v.32bis modems
running SCO 3.2 release 2.0 with the DTE locked at 19200 with hardware flow
control

currently the connections are setup to connect via v.32bis without v.42bis
or MNP

our throughput runs around 1260-1350 cps

the data transferred is 16 bit compressed news

would it be possible to improve on the connection speed with LAPM?  We
tried it once, but throughput appeared to decrease by about 15%.  I was
wondering if we change the LAPM window packet from 128 bytes would we
see any change in throughput?

What could we try to increase throughput?

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: vonb@iitmax.iit.edu (Robert Von Borstel)
Subject: BFJ Enterprises / Supra
Keywords:  Supra - BFJ
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:10:41 GMT

We've had a Supra modem on backorder for eons and I thought it was
going to ship last week from BFJ, however still no modem.  Trying
to call their 800# (1-800-932-4712) it just keeps ringing.

Calling, 411 and getting their direct number (404-998-8251) the
same thing happens.  Having been gone a week, did I miss something
about BFJs?


-- 
Robert Von Borstel                . Internet:vonb@iitmax.iit.edu               
Illinois Institute of Technology  . NeXTmail:vonb@fred.iit.edu  
Academic Computing Center           (312) 567 5962
10 West 31St Street   Chicago, Ill  60616
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:12188 comp.windows.x:15337
From: spg@nereid.sunquest.com (Steve Gibbons)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Start up X-window through 9600 modem
Keywords: Transport
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:10:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: Sunquest Information Systems, Instrument Interfacing
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <BOB.92Aug17144826@volitans.MorningStar.Com>, bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes...
#X requires a TCP/IP connection, which means you'll need to run PPP or
#SLIP between the UNIX system and your PC.  Free and commercially-
#supported implementations of both protocols are available for most
#UNIX systems - ask on comp.protocols.ppp for pointers, or write to
#marketing@morningstar.com for info on our product.  I've heard that
#there are some nice X-over-SLIP (and maybe X-over-PPP) packages for
#DOS PCs, but I can't give you any recommendations since I'm not a DOS
#kinda guy.
# 
#Alternatively, there may be an X-over-XRemote implementation for PCs,
#which would talk to a similar driver on a UNIX system.  This wouldn't
#require (nor offer the advantages of) a real TCP/IP connection between
#the PC and the UNIX system.

Change that to "X requires a transport layer," and I'll buy it.  I'm currently
running X applications locally and over a 9600BPS Modem line using DDCMP 
(Yes, DECnet.)

--
Steve (SPG6) spg@sunquest.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re:  modem schematics
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:13:22 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: It's Home, really...

In article <1992Aug14.230316.9642@qiclab.scn.rain.com> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>Mary.Hicks@f222.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG writes:
>
>>Currently I am interested in Building My own modem (any speed will do),
>>but in order to learn, I need to start off with some MODEM SCEMATICS.
>>Can someout there please e-mail me some addresses of companies, that
>>sell MODEM SCEMATICS? This would be very helpful to me. Does radio shack
>>sell MODEM SCEMATICS? THANKS!
>
>Sorry, but you *can't* do that. To legally hook it to the phone system,
>it has to be FCC approved. And *you* would have to be an FCC licensed
>technician.
>
    How can you tell from the FIDONET addr that she is in the USA, and
hence bound by FCC regs?
--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
              she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel
From: ab245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Sam Latonia)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 16550 vs. 16550AFN
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:21:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug19.202137.23012
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Dan what is the difference in the 16550AN and this VL16C550PC
that I see listed now???
-- 
"HELP" I've fallen and I can't reach the keyboard!
**************************************************
         THE FIRESIDE BBS 884-9728
WHERE THE PARTICULAR PEOPLE COMMUNICATE!
From: bill@twg.bc.ca (Bill Irwin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: What's a good 14400 modem??
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:22:48 GMT
Reply-To: bill@twg.bc.ca (Bill Irwin)
Organization: The Westrheim Group, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

larsen@unislc.uucp (Steve Larsen) writes:

: I know that this mas been asked before, but I am looking for a good,
: reliable 14400 modem, and I was wondering what everyone thought about
: which one is the best.  The main ones I have been looking at are
: Supra, Boca, and Zoom.  I have heard good and bad about all of them.
[...]

I can heartily recommend the Multitech modems for all grades and
speeds.  We have used them for almost five years now and have
found them to be reliable, predictable and versatile in
configuration capabilities.

The tech support is top notch as well.  You will pay a premium,
but I've heard that the price spread is narrowing.  We consider
the $200-300 difference well worth it.  We have tried cheaper
modems on evaluation and have found them a headache.

: Thanx,
: Steve (larsen@unislc.slc.unisys.com)
-- 
Bill Irwin    -       The Westrheim Group     -    Vancouver, BC, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uunet!twg!bill            (604) 431-9600 (voice) |     Your Computer  
bill@twg.bc.ca            (604) 430-4329 (fax)   |    Systems Partner
From: jjr@ctms.gwinnett.com (J.J. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ATI 9600 ETC/E Modems
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:52:33 GMT
Organization: Consolidated Traffic Management Services (CTMS)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bash@tware.com (Paul Bash) writes:
: In article <7224.1011.uupcb@satalink.com> bert.tyler@satalink.com (Bert Tyler) writes:
: >Does anybody know anything about the "ATI 9600 ETC/E" modem?
: >
[stuff deleted]
: >Are these in fact V.32-compliant modems, or do they use some sort
: >of proprietary protocol?  Do they feature any sort of error-correction
: >and compression protocols?
: >
[more stuff deleted]
: If I remember correctly (the modem is on loan to a friend and I don't have
: the manual as I type), an AT&F2 sets the modem up to handle
: V.32/V.42/V.42bis protocols. That's just about all I did to set it up and 
: its worked like a champ since.

We have a bunch of these modems for our office use.  We _have_ run into a
problem when connecting to a telebit modem (not sure which one :().

If you are having a lot of problems, I suggest using AT&F2&U0.  This will
disable compression.  After I did that on my modem (and it was the ONLY
thing I had to do), I have had no problems connecting to anyone.
-- 
jjr@ctms.gwinnett.com is actually a super-ultra-top-secret government test
AI program.  Therefore, no-one may be held responsible for the erroneous
gibberish which periodically spews from this daemon.  
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (The Mad Hatter)
Subject: Wanted: Rockwell chipset information
Summary: Wanted: Rockwell chipset information
Organization: Dept. of CS, Middle TN State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:00:08 GMT

I am interested in any information that anyone may have
about bugs which are specific to the Rockwell chipsets
which are used in so many modern modems. I would prefer 
it if all replies were made by e-mail, although I will
be checking the newsgroup for responses as well.  If I
get enough responses, I will compile the better ones
and post them as a FAQ to this newsgroup.  You may
send your replies to me at: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
Thanks.

- John W.