Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!David From: David@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Standards/Trailblazer Discussion Message-ID: <7805@cup.portal.com> Date: 1 Aug 88 18:22:16 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 195 XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.3426 I certainly got a lot of reaction to my article bemoaning the Trailblazer for its lack of adherence to standards. Here's a summary of the reaction and my responding comments. Please excuse the length, but I think this is a useful dialog. In article <3408@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > The original request was for info on unsupported modems to be used >for a specific trans-Atlantic point-to-point dial-up link. Given the cost >of trans-Atlantic phone calls, the savings you realize by even slightly >better modems make it economical to buy the best you can now and toss them >in a year or two if the winds of change make them no longer the best choice. I agree with this point of view; if you save enough money, an approach that is non-standard can be justified despite the disadvantages. Business is business, after all. Thanks for the comment, Roy. Yet, he seems to agree with my contention that non-standard equipment is disposable, and is headed for the trash can in a few years. In article <5052@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >Ventel makes a PEP modem, and I understand there are others with PEP >products already on the market. I was not aware there were any vendors second-sourcing the Trailblazer. Thanks for the info. So, there is at least one other vendor besides Telebit. >Standards are interesting things. I have never had anyone ask for a >link with bigtex that couldn't talk to my TB+ at their fastest >supported data rate (one site with a Hayes 2400 has some difficulty >with PEP-tones-first). I have never asked anyone for a link and found >that I couldn't talk to them at their highest supported data rate. "That's what I like about standards - there's so many to choose from!". Seriously, your perspective and mine are different; your situation apparently is a lot smaller in scale (I am assuming you are a netadmin type) than mine, and the environment (another assumption, news & mail access) is already pretty well permeated with Trailblazers; mine is not. I'll explain my environment, and my perspective at the end of this article. >There may be V.32, Hayes V9600 and US Robotics HST modems out there, >but I haven't seen any sign of them around here. Well, I would like to point out in the strongest possible language that I do not consider USR HST or Hayes V-series modems to be any more "standard" than the Trailblazer! When I mention V.32 modems, I mean ones compliant with CCITT Recommendation V.32, not subsets, or proprietary derivations thereof. As for not seeing V.32 modems, I assure you they are out there. I have four about two feet away from me, in fact. (Codex 2260's and GDC DC296's, for those who want to know.) In Email <8807302248.AA21314@csvax.caltech.edu> ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu (Kian- Tat Lim) writes: > One of the key features of the Trailblazer is that it contains a >high-speed digital signal processing chip. This chip allows it to encode >and decode the special communications protocol it uses. However, the protocol >is not a function of the chip, which is quite general-purpose, but of the >software that drives it. As a result, Telebit, by "merely" changing the >EPROMs in the unit, can have the Trailblazer use any given protocol. In fact, >Telebit has stated that if a true international standard for high-baud-rate >communications is adopted, they will add it to the Trailblazer ROMs. Thus, >a Trailblazer is a pretty safe choice and won't have to be tossed in the trash >after a couple of years. Thanks for the info. Sounds like Telebit has some product engineers who know their stuff. If and when they are V.32 compliant, then my arguments disappear. But I won't hold my breath. In email <8807310205.AA22406@csvax.caltech.edu> mangler@csvax.caltech.edu (Don Speck) writes: >Ventel also makes Trailblazer compatibles under license. > >When our lab manager said she wanted to buy another 2400 bps dialin >for cit-vax, the brand I suggested was Telebit. That's right, our >Trailblazer is used almost entirely at 2400 bps. It cost 60% more >than the Vadic VA4224 that she was going to get, but it doesn't get >stuck like our 4224's do. Well, I can use my V.32 Codex 2260's in a similar way. But it wouldn't be their primary application. (My silly management expects me to implement cost- effective solutions.) I do find the V.32/V.22bis combination useful for combining dial-in interactive access with dial backup for dedicated lines, however. In Email <8807310548.AA14883@octopus.UUCP> sun!octopus!pete (Pete Holzmann) writes: >How many V.32 modems talk to each other? The last tests I saw, NONE. This >could have changed by now, but several months ago, the various PC magazines >tested them. They liked the speed, but didn't find any more inter- >compatibility than Telebit has. I haven't seen the articles you are referring to, so I have to guess a bit as to what modems were reviewed. If you are referring to modems such as the USR HST and Hayes V-Series, you're right, they don't interoperate. But, to repeat myself, these modems aren't any more standard than the Trailblazer. And if you are referring to modems the bill themselves as fully V.32 compliant, remember how some V.22bis modems wouldn't talk to each other until the modem engineers got more experience? Probably a similar situation. >I hate tossing stuff too. Which is *exactly* the reason I went with the >Telebit. It is so smart, they can add nifty things like V.32 simply by >changing the PROMs! I don't know if you saw the survey they sent out on >the net. But they were looking to find out which new features people >want. Right now, V.32 is not at the top of the list. I think FAX support >was higher, for example (they could add that as well). > >Telebit will add V.32 when the market demands it. For now, the PEP protocol >is a lot nicer than V.32, so they aren't giving it up. Nor are they wasting >time on something slow like V.32. > >Personally, I'd much rather see them add the Fax support, the new MNP level >7+ ultra-compression support (if a 2400 baud modem can get 9600 on binary, >think of what a 14K modem can get! 38.4 support, here we come!!!) To repeat myself again, if and when the Trailblazer supports V.32, my arguments disappear. Thanks for the comments, Pete. In Email <8807310823.AA00975@stanton.TCC.COM> uunet!stanton.TCC.COM!donegan writes: >I have several rules in implementing data communications products for my >company: > >1) You NEVER throw away something that works, weather it is standard or not. > >2) You implement whatever it takes to get the job done, even if it is NOT > standard. > >Given those two rules of thumb, the Trailblazer works for me in environments >that choke V.32 modems (or any others for that matter). One really ugly >environment to do dial-ups to is from the US to Singapore, nasty line hits >and echo/noise constantly. Only the Trailblazer worked in this application. >If your application is a leased line one, and you are using an error >correction (such as X.25 or whatever) then use whatever standard modem you >choose and you'll be as happy as the unreliable nature of the 'last mile' in >a foreign country will allow you to be. For nasty environment dial-ups use a >Trailblazer, or if you find something better (real world testing, not bench >testing) please let me know. I don't think we disagree on the "rules" here. In fact, I too hate throwing things away, which was the whole point of my original posting. And if I have to use non-standard equipment to get the job done, so be it. But I don't have to think it is a good long-term solution. Having had personal experience with communications to foreign countries, I can agree that sometimes it seems that an ultra-high-noise-immunity (but proprietary) modem like the Trailblazer is the only solution. If I absolutely had no other choice, I would use it. But the reality is that there is almost always another choice. Now, my general comments as to my environment and perspective, to amplify my previous posting: The environment I must implement communications systems in is a worldwide corporation with a heavy emphasis on IBM/SNA and X.25 architectures. I am responsible for the planning and implementation of new networks and the upgrade and fine-tuning of established networks. So, I have a very large, global view as opposed to some of the readers, who seem to range upward from the very small and very domestic U.S.A. outlook. If I have a choice, my choice will *always* be to utilize a standards-oriented approach. The benefits are: - I don't have the disposable-equipment syndrome, or support at a given vendor's whim, because there are many vendors competing for my business. - I have equipment I can keep for five years and re-use in applications that weren't even thought of when the equipment was originally purchased. - Standards-oriented equipment is much cheaper to operate over a five year period; non-standard equipment will have to be replaced before then. - Foreign PTT's and domestic carriers are much easier to deal with when troubles arise if I use standards-compliant equipment. - Accessory systems such as network management can be added with far greater ease to a network based on standards rather than one based on one vendor's proprietary schemes. And, as my last thought of the day on this topic, consider *why* vendors such as Telebit are offering price incentives to USENET sites. It is not out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it in an attempt to seduce this particular influential market sector away from a standards-based approach, which is of course to their benefit over the long term, and to the general consumer's detriment. An analogy is they want you netadmin types to quit using rectangular bricks and start using spherical ones, so they can dominate the spherical brick market and make lots of money. It's not a conspiracy, but don't believe for a moment that Telebit puts being nice to USENET sites ahead of making money. Just take a more consumeristic attitude - is the short-term benefit worth the long-term problems? I don't think so. I say, "The Emperor has no clothes!", when it comes to Telebit, that's all. David@cup.portal.com David McCord 415/424-5644 voice