Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!dnlunx!pttrnl.nl!walvdrk_r
From: walvdrk_r@pttrnl.nl
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Another 9600 protocol!
Message-ID: <1991Mar9.204759.65016@pttrnl.nl>
Date: 9 Mar 91 19:47:59 GMT
References: <6956.27D86C08@zswamp.fidonet.org>
Lines: 32

In article <6956.27D86C08@zswamp.fidonet.org>, root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
> 
>  >From: tnixon@hayes.uucp
> 
>    I recently read the spiel from CompuCom and was outraged at the things 
> they said.  When I read your comments using words like "nonsense", I think 
> you're being very charitable.
> 
>    The CompuCom folks are taking pot shots at existing standards and 
> manufacturers; I think that they deserve the weight of any backlash publicity 
> that decent (and scrupulous) manufacturers can provide.

Eh ... I (about) know what 'pot' is, but shooting with it? ;-)

The 'problem' with that 'new' thing is the lack of information. The original 
poster was so kind as to copy part of the advertisement but that didn't give 
any clues about the actually used modulation technique. I suspect that it 
essentially uses a V.29 (fax standard for 9600bps simplex operation) modulation 
and that some clever tricks were added to turn around the direction of 
transmission (not used by faxes). If that is indeed the case, there's no reason 
to make such a fuzz about technological advancements. There isn't; just a smart 
way of using cheap and currently available technology.

Could somebody shed some light on this subject?

The other point may be whether it makes sense to add a (de-facto) "standard" to 
the existing list.

-- 

Kees  van der Wal				  e-mail: JC_vdWal@pttrnl.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------