Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3544 unix-pc.general:862
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!cuuxun!cuuxb!mmengel
From: mmengel@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT4103000~Marc Mengel~C25~G25~6184~)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: OBM
Message-ID: <1861@cuuxb.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 88 13:34:52 GMT
References: <293@uncle.UUCP> <137@limbic.UUCP> <1020@hsi.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmengel@cuuxb.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: AT&T, Data Systems Group, Lisle, IL
Lines: 37

In article <1020@hsi.UUCP> stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes:
$In article <137@limbic.UUCP>, gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes:
$> 
$> One more point of clarification -- a lot of folks have been beating the
$> OBM (on-board modem) to death on the net, as well as port tty000.  Please
$> folks, the hardware is not at fault.
$I think the OBM is real junk, especially coming from "the" phone
$company.  
[Example of  Racal-vadic & Telebit working better than  7300 OBM]
$
$Why is it the non-AT&T modems are so much better than the AT&T
$modems ??

	Well, the OBM on the 7300 was sold by AT&T, but
	it is completely unrelated to any of the modems actually
	built by AT&T; it was just whatever Convergent Technologies 
	decided to throw in the box when they built the machine.
	(The 7300 was designed & built many moons ago by Convergent
	for AT&T.  The system, while sufficient for many people,
	isn't as strict about meeting interface spec.s as "our"
	equipment.  As far as I know, it is the only modem Convergent
	ever built.)

	So, please don't generalize about AT&T modems based on 
	the 7300.  Most of our actual modem line, esp. the high
	end DATAPHONE II line, is *very* high quality.

$	Richard Stevens
$	Health Systems International, New Haven, CT
$           { uunet | ihnp4 } ! hsi ! stevens


-- 
 Marc Mengel			       
				
 attmail!mmengel	
 {lll-crg|mtune|ihnp4}!cuuxb!mmengel