Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: those {{{{{{{{{{{{ 's Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 89 03:59:28 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 28 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 215, message 4 of 8 Concerning the following: From: clements@bbn.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Date: 25 Jun 89 19:56:49 GMT >Could someone give me a semi-technical explanation for those {{{{{{{{ >which appear as interference at 1200 baud? Assuming that the errors happen at a quite steady rate, this is the problem known as "clock slip" or "frame slip" on a digital inter-office trunk. That may well be, but it can also simply mean that the isolation relay in the modem has dirty contacts. I had a 1200'er which would work error free for a month or two, and then start to generate such errors, at a more or less steady rate too. To fix it, I would open it up, pop the cover off the relay, clean it with electronic solvent (doing my share for the ozone layer, I'm sure ;-{), and then be okay for two more months. I just bought a new modem, and was surprised to find such a relay still present. I guess they're needed for FCC regulations, or something, but my ideal solution would probably use silicon and *no* *moving* *parts*. One easy way to tell if this is what needs to be done is to thwack on top of the modem. If that gives you a fistful of {'s, then clean the relay, and leave the poor functionaries at the telephone company alone.