HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Roger_Nordin@f302.n901.z92.badnet.bad.se (Roger Nordin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: USR Sportster 14.4 faxmod
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 05:23:24 +0000
Reply-To: Roger_Nordin@f302.n901.z92.badnet.bad.se (Roger Nordin)
Distribution: world
Organization: ANet Test Bench, Karlstad, Sweden 
OD-Comment-To: Internet_Gateway

> I just talked with the sales reps at USR and one of the differences
> they claim between the sportster and the courier line is that the
> courier will renegotiate to higher speeds (fall-forward), while the
> sportster WILL NOT.

Are you sure there wasn't some misunderstanding involved? I.e. the Courier has 
ASL, the Sportster has not. ASL allows the modem to fallback and fallforward 
asymmetrically, which is not offered by the V.32bis standard otherwise. This 
is the main difference between the Courier and Sportster modem, when it comes 
to handling of bad lines. ASL is a proprietary enhanchement to V.32bis, and I'
m sure the sales reps at USR must have mentioned ASL. ASL is not the same as 
fallforward (although the manual tries to give a vague impression that it is), 
it's an optional part of the V.32bis standard. And, according to documentation,
the Sportster does support it. The only thing USR removed here, was ASL.

                        _       .    __
    Roger Nordin     _ //      /!Net /est Bench
 2:203/602.0@fidonet \X/  Internet: Roger_Nordin@bad.se

--- 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: toree@swix.ifi.unit.no (Tore Eriksmoen)
Subject: Intel SatisFAXtion 400 vs. Zyxel U1496B
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 12:18:45 GMT

Can anyone give me some info on the new Intel SatisFAXtion 400
internal fax/modem (speeds, standards, features etc..). 

Does it contain all the modem-features of the Intel 14.4EX?

How does this card compare on price/performance/features with
the Zyxel U1496B?



Tore Eriksmoen
---------------------------------------
toree@swix.ifi.unit.no (129.241.163.51)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
From: hope@huracan.cr (Theodore Hope)
Subject: Re: PEP vs. V.32bis w/ V.42bis for international connections
Organization: Proyecto Huracan - Fundacion Nahual / San Jose, Costa Rica
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 14:21:09 CAM


In <0105015D.cvqr6b@phngnc.Phonogenic.COM> wjk@Phonogenic.COM (Bill Keenan) writes:

> I am trying to figure out the cheapest (over time) and most reliable
> way to communicate with a missionary in Nairobi Kenya.
  ...
> Does PEP (a half duplex modulation?) perform better
> or worse than V.32bis w/ V.42bis in a multi-satellite connection? (I
> plan to use a UUCP package running on the Mac or PC at either end of
> the connection.) 

It's not so much which will perform better, but if you'll be able to connect
with V.32bis in the first place.  I've had very bad luck in getting V.32 or
V.32 bis connections between so-called "Third World" countries (what a term...)
and the U.S., but PEP practically almost works -- even though the effective
throughput may be much lower than desired.

Since you'll be doing uucp anyway, the combination of PEP and spoofing should
do OK.
--
Theodore Hope / Proyecto Huracan - Fundacion Nahual / San Jose, COSTA RICA
From: dkw@wolferts.ka.sub.org (Klaus Wolferts)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: PEP vs. V.32bis w/ V.42bis for international connections
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 13:30:44 MESZ
Distribution: world               
Organization: Ing'Buro f. EDV + Elektronik, D-7500 Karlsruhe 31

Petty@ralvm29.VNET.IBM.COM (Jack Petty) writes:
>
> Wolfgang Henke writes:
> >
> >If you do it with a V.32/V.32bis modem, then consider those speeds which
> >require the least signal-to-noise. V.32 at a fallback speed of 4800 bps
> >requires only 16 dbm or so, less than other speeds or protocols.
> >
> I find 7200 bps more robust against some impairments than 4800 bps so
> I recommend trying 7200 bps before 4800 if the modem offers 7200.
> (The reason why 7200 can be more robust is because it has trellis coding
> which 4800 bps does not).

What is trellis coding and how does it work?

I know that it is a modulation method, and something like a "forward 
error correcting protocol" and is usable only with V.32 (9600/4800)
and perhaps in V.32bis (14400, 12000, 9600, 7200) too?

And I can't imagine how a "forward error correcting protocol" would 
work.

Klaus
 ____    __  __  __    __   __
|    \  |  |/ / |  | /|  | / / Dr.-Ing. Klaus Wolferts: dkw@wolferts.ka.sub.org
|  |  | |  | /  |  |/ |  |/ / Ing'Buro f. EDV + Elektronik  
| d|  | | k| \  | w| /|  | / Mitteltorstr. 45,            Phone: +49 721 706016
|____/  |__|\_\ |__|/ |__|/ D-7500 Karlsruhe 31, Germany,  4903'02"N 822'58"E
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: 16550 UARTs and equivalents
From: dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz (dogbowl)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 12:17:12 Y
Organization: The Dawghaus BBS
Keywords: compatability
Summary: How compatable is 'compatable'



Does anyone know how compatable Silicon Systems 73M550 UARTs are with
National 16550's. I have been told by salespeople that they are pin-
compatable, but I'd like to know if they are progarmmed the same
before I go buying any.

Reliability reports would be most welcome too.



dogbowl at The Dawghaus BBS  ( +64 6 357-9245 )


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe)
Subject: Latest WB ROMs from UUNET?
Organization: GTE/MSED - Needham Heights, MA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:11:46 GMT


We're getting ready to buy two WorldBlazers from UUNET (some time in
the next two days).  I made several phone calls today but nobody I
spoke with (at either UUNET or Telebit) could tell me what ROM release
level I would receive.  

Has anyone received a WorldBlazer from UUNET in the last week or so?
If so, please tell me what version of the ROM you have.  E-mail is
preferable. 
--
Dave Pascoe
Internet: pascoe@rocky.gte.com
GTE/MSED - Needham Heights, MA
(617) 455-5704
From: Gary_Pope@bearsden.UUCP (Gary Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Lightning Communications Gone?
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:22:10 GMT
Organization: The Bear's Den BBS   (715) 839-7997

I tried to call there numbers and got no answer. I have one of ther 144f
modems and it`s a very good product. It`s to bad, but I a happy that I
got the updated roms before this happened.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:13431 biz.comp.telebit:919
From: duck@nuustak.csir.co.za (Paul Ducklin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
Subject: Re: PEP vs. V.32bis w/ V.42bis for international connections
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:07:05 GMT
Organization: Infotek, CSIR

>> I am trying to figure out the cheapest (over time) and most reliable
>> way to communicate with a missionary in Nairobi Kenya.
>  ...
>> Does PEP (a half duplex modulation?) perform better
>> or worse than V.32bis w/ V.42bis in a multi-satellite connection? (I
>> plan to use a UUCP package running on the Mac or PC at either end of
>> the connection.) 
>It's not so much which will perform better, but if you'll be able to connect
>with V.32bis in the first place.  I've had very bad luck in getting V.32 or
>V.32 bis connections between so-called "Third World" countries (what a term)
>and the U.S., but PEP practically almost works -- even though the effective
>throughput may be much lower than desired.

Yes. A colleague of mine runs a regular dialup link from South Africa
to Northern Mozambique to carry NetNews yonder. Thanks to PEP, he's able
to connect [as we jest to him] with two tins cans and a bit of string.
With V.xx, he laboured fairly ineffectively.

If your friend is actually in the city [Nairobi], you should be OK. Telecomms
to the built-up areas of Kenya are quite good [on a recent trip, I had no
trouble dialling home to Pretoria from my hotel room in Nairobi; nor have
I had much trouble dialling Nairobi from Pretoria for voice and fax]. Quick
point -- if you're phoning Kenya and you keep getting an engaged signal
["busy" in StateSpeak], hang in there. That's the ringing tone. Blew my
mind for a while -- I thought I'd picked the busiest fax machine in the
world. 

Also -- make all the calls from StateSide. Kenyan phone calls cost *big*
money: local calls are pricey; international calls will blow your mind.

-- 

--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--
Paul Ducklin                                           duck@nuustak.csir.co.za

    CSIR Computer Virus Research Lab * Box 395 * Pretoria * 0001 S Africa
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:13102 comp.mail.uucp:1769
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCP 'G' protocol packet size
Date: 8 Sep 92 04:45:15 GMT
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems

geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:

>ti@bazooka.amb.org (Ti Kan) writes:

>> So the question is, is there any benefit in increasing
>> this to something like 4096 bytes?  Do I run the risk of making my
>> uucico incompatible with other systems?

>   First of all, you're confusing UUCP-g with UUCP-G protocols.  The larger G 
>protocol was designed to allow varied window and block size, while g protocol 
>is usually implemented with, as you observed, fixed block size.

This is true from a certain point of view, but I think it needs
clarification.  In my experience, most UUCP 'g' protocols support any
window or block size, when requested by the remote system.  The ones
which don't are the exception.  The real difference is that the SVR4
'G' protocol provides an easy way to change the window and block size
which your system requests, whereas most 'g' protocol implementations
do not.

If your 'g' implementation lets you choose the window and block size,
you can often increase it with no difficulties, depending on what is
running on the remote system.

Moreover, every 'g' implementation that I am aware of will accept
varying block sizes in a single conversation, up to the requested
limit.  The SVR4 'G' implementation will not; every block sent must be
of the same size, which is surprisingly bad when using large block
sizes.

>   Increasing the block size will increase the window size, and that will help 
>increase throughput where significant latency is involved.  However, it is not 
>compatible with most uucicos which don't support G protocol and have an 
>inflexible g protocol block size.

I believe that the latter is a limited set, and that it does not
include any version of HDB UUCP.

>It's also incompatible with Telebit (and 
>probably Microcom and others) spoofing, which will do more for throughput than 
>larger blocks because they effectively turn UUCP-g into a streaming protocol 
>where it counts.

You are normally better off spoofing if you have a modem which
supports spoofing, but I believe you can do better than Telebit 2500
spoofing by making a V.42bis connection with a 1024 byte block size.
-- 
Ian Lance Taylor                ian@airs.com                 uunet!airs!ian
First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message:
``He caught the lady in this way: so when the lady was running away for her
  life, he hastily ran to her front and stopped her as a log of wood.''
From: @soda.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Binary Sychronous Communication (2780)
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:39:53 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu



In article <1992Sep4.165109.10091@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> eastick@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Doug Eastick) writes:
>
>We are in the position of having to dial-up an IBM mainframe to pick up
>some EDI documents.  We'd like to use an intel x86 box.  I know of a board
>from Cleo Communications which will give us bisync and will work with
>various DOS software communication packages.
>
>My question is this:  does anyone know of any 386, UNIX-based or UNIX-like
>OS's which support bisync communication?  

386BSD does not support bisync communications, but it would be trivial
to do. However, that's not the important consideration. The key item is
what you want to do with it. If you want to do a 2780 emulator, for example,
that's a much larger project.

>Also, how does Telebit's T2500 do SNA and bisync when there is only an
>RS232 port?  Hmm?

They do serial communications and reinterpret the signals with a V.35
single-ended interface. They're assuming you have a special board and
cable set.

Lynne Jolitz.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.hardware
From: mo@sdf.lonestar.org (Mohit Goyal)
Subject: Information wanted on USRobotics Shared Access Modems
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:04:55 GMT

Hello.

Can anyone please give me some information on USR's v32bis Shared Access
Modem?

How many computers can hook up to it at one time?
How does it work? (can more than one computer use it at the same time?)
How much does USR charge for it, and/or how much does it cost through
retail channels?

I would be very grateful to anyone who could answer the above questions
for me.  If you reply to me using email then I will post a summary to
the newsgroup.  You can reply to the newsgroup if you want to as I read
them daily.

All replies will be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.
From: vz22+@andrew.cmu.edu (Valdis J. Zeps)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: USR Sportster 14.4 faxmod
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:59:03 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.modems: 10-Sep-92 USR Sportster 14.4
faxmod by John Navas@uttsbbs.uucp 
> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) responds:
>  
>  >> telebit 2500 or a new USR sportster 32 bis. My question is does it
>  >> fall forwards after lines get better?
>  
>  JN> According to the documentation, yes.
>  
>  > A better question to ask is, does the Sportster _initiate_ a
>  > fall-forward, or can it only respond to such a request from the
>  > other modem?
>  
> Again, according to the documentation the Sportster will *initiate*
> both fall-forward and fall-back as appropriate.
>  
I just talked with the sales reps at USR and one of the differences
they claim between the sportster and the courier line is that the
courier will renegotiate to higher speeds (fall-forward), while the
sportster WILL NOT. I don't know what documentation you were reading,
but what you stated was not is not consistent with what USR is claiming,
and what I read in a flier from the company.
-Valdis Zeps
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: Zxyel/Supra
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:39:38 GMT

dliao@aludra.usc.edu (David Liao) writes:
>I don't know which modem should I get.  Supra is cheap, but I'm
>afraid it can't connect to some modem.  Zxyel seems to have better
>reputation, but it's a bit expensive.  Can someone distinguish the
>characteristics between these two modems.

Supra perpetually claims that it will have new eproms done in 2 weeks.

ZyXel ships new eproms every two weeks.  ;-)

In all seriousness - Supra's customer support just sucks.  I have been
trying to get an updated set of eproms from them for 6 months now.
You think they could be bothered to do anything other than mumbling
something about "any day now?"  If you buy a Supra, expect anything to
take anywhere between forever and two weeks after that.

I just got a ZyXel on loan.  Expect a contrasting bug-off ;-) between
the modems soon.  ZyXel at least knows how to support it's customers.
They make new prom images freely available.  They also release new
prom images in a timely manner.

-wolfgang

-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) decwrl!wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
From: jerry@incc.com (Jerry Rocteur)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Word of Advice
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:23:22 GMT
Organization: InCC.com Perwez Belgium

In article <36942@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, bjs@neptune.phys.ufl.edu (Brian J. Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.063904.8574@samba.oit.unc.edu> Denny.Chuang@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Denny Chuang) writes:
> >
> >	I know Supra, Zoom, boca are in the sam boat, all three companies offer
> >	the lowest price avaliable for a 1`4.4k  modem.  
> 
> 
> Wait, I bought 8 Zoom 14.4 External Fax Modems, had to send one back, but they
> come with a 7 year warrenty.  My question is what are the problems with the
> Zoom ?  The 2 reasons that I bought that brand over XYZ modem is that I hadn't
> heard of any troubles with the Zooms.  And the cost of the Zoom was 100 bucks
> less then PP's 14.4 modem.  As for supras I just stayed away from them after
> the flood of problems and 4 month waiting lists.
> Could someone enlighten me ?

I received a Zoom V.42bis VFX modem about 4 weeks ago.

I rarely get cps over 1200, usually 800-900, I can't get it to work
with uucp for more than 3 - 4 minutes without ASSERT ERRORs, when I
use it with PC plus, odyssey, xc or cu to log into bbs or other UNIX
machines interatively it drops carrier after 3 - 4 minutes,
I've tried to phone Zoom, never answer, sorry, yes, they do answer
after 5 to tell you it is after 5 and it is now an aswering machine,
I have faxed them twice, no reply.

BTW, it is great for faxes but slightly expensive for that.

I am in the market for another modem and I have narrowed it down to
MultiTech, USR or Zyxel.
-- 
 __^__                                                              __^__
( ___ )------------------------------------------------------------( ___ )
 | / | Jerry Rocteur                       Email: jerry@InCC.COM    | \ |
 |___|  Independent Computer Consultants division DELDRA s.p.r.l.   |___|
(_____)------------------------------------------------------------(_____)
   ^                                                                  ^
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: DALLAS FAX
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 01:12:33 GMT

In article <7N3mqB1w165w@infopls.chi.il.us> eck@infopls.chi.il.us (John Eckert) writes:
>Incoming calls are assumed to be faxes UNLESS the caller sends a signal 
>with his phone to tell the faxboard that this is a voice call.  
>Obviously, callers from cellular phones and rotary phones cannot send the 
>signal, so their calls switch to fax-mode!  

You're correct on rotary phones.  But any cellular phone that does not
switch to sending tone once a call is established is a piece of crap.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:12990 comp.mail.uucp:1744
From: ti@bazooka.amb.org (Ti Kan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: UUCP 'G' protocol packet size
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:34:37 GMT
Reply-To: ti@bazooka.amb.org (Ti Kan)
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: AMB Research Labs, Sunnyvale, CA.

I have been playing around with the UUCP 'G' protocol by increasing
my uucico's supported window size from 3 to 7.  This yielded a nice
~20% boost in throughput when transferring compressed news batches.
This appears to have no ill effects as far as compatibility with other
systems go.

I have recently acquired the "Managing UUCP and Usenet" book from
O'Reilly and in the G-Protocol Appendix, it gives a table of "K-Byte
Value" in the packet header and the corresponding "Data Segment
Length" in bytes (Pg. 313).  The table lists lengths as high as
4096 bytes.  I am assuming in this case "data segment == packet".
Also, on Pg. 321 it says that although the G protocol allows for
data packets with different K-values (physical lengths) to be sent
in a session, in practice both ends always use the value negotiated
at the start of the session.  On Pg. 314 it indicates that the
maximum data segment size to use is negotiated in the INITB phase
of the initial handshake.

With the previous paragraph in mind, I looked into the version of
uucico that I'm using and found that the "packet size" is hardwired
to 64 bytes.  So the question is, is there any benefit in increasing
this to something like 4096 bytes?  Do I run the risk of making my
uucico incompatible with other systems?

Any information would be greatly appreciated...

-Ti
-- 
    ///  Ti Kan                vorsprung durch technik
   ///   AMB Research Laboratories, Sunnyvale, CA. USA
  ///    ti@bazooka.amb.org
 //////  ...!{decwrl,synopsys,tandem,tsoft,ultra}!sgiblab!bazooka!ti
///      ...!{uunet,sun,apple,sco}!altos!bazooka!ti
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Worldblazer telebit modems
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:14:33 GMT
Keywords: worldblazer telebit modems Europe

In article <121.12417@incc.com> jerry@incc.com (Jerry Rocteur) writes:
>I have been in the market for a telebit Worldblazer modem, I am in
>Belgium and I have posted a request for someone who would be willing
>to sell me one.
....
>First of all Telebit themselves won't sell to Europe from the states,
>they automatically give you their distributor in UK.

>Some American companies will send to Europe and the best price is $645
>and the worse is $780.
..
>I am not quite sure what is funniest, the 945 pounds from UK or the
>Luxembourger not being authorized.

>So, if you want a Telebit, you buy one from the states, of course
>without warranty or you buy another brand, I suggest we give Telebit a
>miss and give them a big rasberry.

Well for the prices you could buy 3 Telebits from the States,
and then if one fails you have plenty of backup while waiting
for repair :-)
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Worldblazer telebit modems
Keywords: worldblazer telebit modems Europe
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:04:08 GMT
Organization: Aegis Society, Kyoto Japan

dwight@hyphen.com (Dwight Ernest) writes:

>bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:

>>Well for the prices you could buy 3 Telebits from the States,
>>and then if one fails you have plenty of backup while waiting
>>for repair :-)

>There's at least one rather large problem with this.  In many (most?
>all?) European countries, approval from the local PTT is required
>before a modem or similar device may be attached to the phone lines.
>In the UK, the approving body is the BABT, and without their 'green
>sticker', any person attaching a modem is technically running afoul of
>the law and subject to possible fines.

From what people have said before, these laws aren't well enforced
in many countries. I believe Germany was mentioned. But maybe this
is better discussed in mail ....

Dave

--
Dave McLane 
JUNET: davidg@aegis.or.jp (ONLY within Japan: post otherwise)
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087