Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!hoss!hoss.unl.edu!riddle
From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Intel 9600ex
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.142134.7549@hoss.unl.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 91 14:21:34 GMT
References: <4028@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <3186@unocss.unomaha.edu>
Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer)
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lines: 64

In <3186@unocss.unomaha.edu> fg041@unocss.unomaha.edu (fg041) writes:

>In article <4028@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes:
>>I just got a couple of these and am quite impressed with them.
>>
>>I tested against Telebit T2500s as well and they will connect to them
>>fine in V.32 mode.

>I was impressed with mine at first, but now I am rather disappointed.

* * *

>For some reason, Intel has chosen only to present the Bell 103 answer tone
>for three seconds.

It's not just the Bell 103.  The entire answering sequence, from RING to
NO CARRIER, takes less than 20 seconds.  There is at least one BBS using
a Courier 2400 (I think it is) that can't connect when initiating a call 
to my board.  (Thank goodness it's local, so I can put a poll in every now
and then without running up the phone bill).

Unfortunately for me, the Intel is still better than the old beast I had
on the line, so I'll leave it for now.  But it is frustrating. 

>I did report it to Intel, and they admitted they knew of the problem but
>could not/would not say when a fix was due.  (Real Soon Now ;-)  The guy
>I spoke to would not speculate on the reason the 103 answer tone is so
>short.  (Any ideas out there in netland ??)

I think your supposition below is correct:  Intel was concerned about V.32
connectivity but forgot to write a test plan for older protocols that
considered the entire user base.

>>Does anyone know if Intel will have V.32bis support as a prom upgrade or
>>will it be a new product?

>Right now I could care less about v.32bis for the thing.  I just want it to
>operate properly with the standard modems that have been around for the past
>several years.  (And no, I don't consider telling the affected users to get
>newer modems an appropriate solution.)

>It's too bad that when a product such as the 9600ex came out, it was so
>thoroughly tested against the Robotics and Telebit macho modems, when it
>is so glaringly obvious that they failed to verify the performance with
>the older ones.  I could possibly see one or two models having difficulty,
>but this is with several types of modems from several different vendors.
> 
>I just hope they get this fixed soon.
> 
I have asked Intel what their plans for the "automode" function of V.32bis
and, as Toby has told us, eventually an option for V.32.  So far, no
answer.  It would seem to me that a ROM upgrade for automode wouldn't be
exceptionally difficult.  It also seems that voluntary compliance with the
industry standard would be a good defense/answer to complaints such as
ours.  




--
            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
riddle@hoss.unl.edu                  |   University of Nebraska 
postmaster%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu   |   College of Law
mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA