Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nems!mimsy!haven!udel!princeton!njsmu!telesci!kindred From: kindred@pyrite.telesci.UUCP (David L Kindred (Dave)) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Why 300 baud? Message-ID: Date: 31 May 90 22:50:56 GMT References: <9686@discus.technion.ac.il> <1990May31.025608.18545@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@telesci.UUCP Reply-To: kindred@telesci.uucp Organization: Telesciences CO Systems, Inc. Lines: 31 In-reply-to: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU's message of 31 May 90 02:56:08 GMT In article <1990May31.025608.18545@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: In article <9686@discus.technion.ac.il> joel%techunix.bitnet@jade.berkeley.edu (Yossi (Joel) Hoffman) writes: >I was wondering: why is it that all the common modem speeds are >multiples of 300 baud? Is there anything special about that number? the next logical baud rate was 300. The Bell 212 actually runs at 600 baud, coding 2 bits per symbol. The natural progression was then, 1200, 2400, 4800, 9600, 19200. ANSI was trying to standardize baud rates during the same time frame, and so there is an ANSI standard somewhere setting standard baud rates at 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc. Not to be outdone, IBM -- who always want proprietary hardware, started using 1800, 3600, 7200, and 14400 bps as their synchronous bit rates. Along the lines a strange baud rates, I personally have run into the all time favorite baud rates of 134.5 and 1050. The 134.5 was used in a six bit commodities ticker, but I can not remember what used 1050, I ran into it while working for a company that was doing work for the Associated Press, so I suspect it was used in some of their older network equipment. For really old equipment, 50 and 75 baud were also used. -- EMail: kindred@telesci.UUCP (...!princeton!pyrnj!telesci!kindred) CI$: 72456,3226 (72456.3226@compuserve.com) Phone: +1 609 866 1000 x222 Snail: TeleSciences C O Systems, 351 New Albany Rd, Moorestown, NJ 08057-1177