Xref: utzoo news.newusers.questions:2670 comp.dcom.modems:6634 alt.flame:23050 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!saxony!dgil From: dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions,comp.dcom.modems,alt.flame Subject: Re: Modem Speed Message-ID: <363@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> Date: 31 Aug 90 18:30:46 GMT References: <358@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> <2447@polari.UUCP> Organization: Reuter:file Inc (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA Lines: 51 In <2447@polari.UUCP> tronix@polari.UUCP (David Daniel) writes: {using [] where he quotes me} >[] ... bps ... baud rates >are two completely different critters, not interchangeable terms. Baud refers to >how often the analog signal ocillates during transmission, named after the >a French guy - Baudot (or some such french splling). Bps is bits per second. >If memory serves, and it probably doesn't, 1 baud represents roughly 2.xx bits. You lose, turkey. While you've got the definitions of bps and baud rate correct (boy, what a brain-o!), you (a) missed the point that in fact I was carefully using each correctly where that was what I was talking about, and (b) 1 baud is essentially 1 bps at low speeds; I was briefly recounting *why* 1 baud = 2 bps *at*1200*bps*using*Bell*212*or*v.22 and 1 baud = 4 bps using v.22 bis (2400 bps). If you'd read what I wrote, your memory wouldn't *have* to serve! >[] be lost due to noise. Most 1200, 2400 and above modems actually use >[] 600 baud in each direction, and use the phase of the signal (okay; 9600 > ^^^ ^^^^ >That's actually 1200+ bps. Baud rates BTW, are obsolete. If you see a modern >modem rated at 2400, the speed is measured in bps. That's 1200 bps, 2400 bps, or whatever the modem is rated for. RTFP! Since you know what a baud is, you also *know* that it is no more obsolete than any other unit of measurement: did "Megahertz" become obsolete when "MIPS" were invented? No, they measure related things in different ways, just like baud and bps do. (You'll notice that in the quote I refer to the numerical rating of the modems but *not* to the units; you'll sometimes see them labelled "bps", sometimes "baud", and sometimes just with the number. And since I then specify that these really use 600 baud (again properly using the term as it is defined!), then any reasonably bright reader would say: "Gee, if 2400 bps modems really use 600 baud, then I guess that it's incorrect to label them as 2400 *baud*." The point certainly doesn't need to be laboured--and I don't need to be flamed for it! >[] Assuming that you can get around logical conditions imposed by the modem >[]firmware, you're likely to be running up against constraints imposed by the >[]physical universe. It's not likely to be worth the effort; it's definitely >[]not going to stand comparison against buy 9600 bps modems. >In other words, the answer is no, unless you use built it transfer protocols - >error correction, data compression or ideally a combination of both to increase >through-put. No, is indeed the answer. The question, though, was phrased in terms of increasing the bps rate and not in terms of increasing the throughput. Perhaps Daniel did a better job than I did of reading the original poster's mind on this point. Dave