Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab.ge.com!tarpit!bilver!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: New Modems
Message-ID: <1990Nov28.042729.8077@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 28 Nov 90 04:27:29 GMT
References: <1990Nov21.221114.11850@unixland.uucp> <9842@discus.technion.ac.il> <1990Nov26.062122.24546@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 21

In article <1990Nov26.062122.24546@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes:
>The PC Mag test was measuring the ability to hold the line
>when using V.32/V.42/V.42bis and not PEP.

That's not what the article says.  Quoting here: "The Telebit modem
did not perform well under any of our degraded-line tests using
either its V.32 or PEP mode."  However, beyond this statement, there
were no further references indicating that the reviewers used or
tested PEP.

I'd like to throw in that the article unauspiciously contained the
following in its opening paragraph: "The latest modem turbochargers
center on new V.32, V.42, and V.42bis error-checking and
data-compression protocols, yielding throughput rates of 9,600,
19,600, [sic] and even 38,400 bits per second over dial-up telephone
lines."  Fortunately, they later pointed out that V.32 is not an
error-checking or data-compression protocol.  They also measured
throughput with a nebulous "kilobits per second" rather than a more
usable bytes per second.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)