Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!WILLIAMS.BITNET!WITLICKI
From: WITLICKI@WILLIAMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Re: baud vs. bit/sec
Message-ID: <8704222118.AA21523@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 16:18:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8704222118.AA21523
Posted: Wed Apr 22 16:18:48 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 05:18:18 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17

Phil Ngia writes:
>
>You are wrong. Ever heard of Bell 212? Try looking it up.
>Also, you surely mean less than 2400 bps, not baud.
>--

  ooops, sorry you're right.
  i guess that shows i can just as easily fall into the trap of equating
bps and baud.  (for the $ set terminal  command on the VMS vax which
I use every so often, the Help command says you are setting the
speed in baud...)
  am i being uptight about people using 'baud' to describe bps,
especially when it is RS232 (yes i know when you are doing binary
signaling that baud does == bps, but i think bps is more proper).
  old habits die hard.

- randy