Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: PEP vs. v.32 Message-ID: <19406@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 1 Mar 91 23:06:32 GMT References: <6895.27CDE02A@zswamp.fidonet.org> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 34 In article <6895.27CDE02A@zswamp.fidonet.org> root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > > >From: tnixon@hayes.uucp > > > I would think PEP, using more of the available frequency bandwidth > > should be able to get consistently 18,000 bps or higher. Why not? > > >PEP already uses virtually all of the available bandwidth; > > I think the question here is, why does V.32bis (or the newer HST > modulation) get 14,400 bps raw carrier throughput on all decent lines, while > PEP may reach 16,000 bps only under very rare 'ideal' lines. I think you need to examine closely the relation between these "ideal" lines and "all decent" lines. There's not a lot of user evidence on what percentage of call attempts will work at 14.4 and some contention even about 9600. > I've often wondered what could be done to improve DAMQAM modulation. It > is, after all, the oldest of the current high speed dialup modem technologies, > predating the HST, the V-9600, and even the widespread public acceptance of > 2400 bps! Yes/No. The underlying technologies and the product implementations have distinctly different timelines. I hope Telebit does manage to come out with a second generation scheme that combines the apparent benefits of multi-carrier technology with the full- duplex nature that echo-cancellation supports. It's hard to predict whether they will do so while there is still a reasonably window of opportunity... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)