Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:5373 comp.sys.mac.hardware:2027 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: Searching for inexpensive V.32 9600 bps modems (was cheap telebits)... Message-ID: <9977@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 4 Mar 90 21:36:48 GMT References: <8398@potomac.ads.com> <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 50 In article <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > In article <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: > > > >I disagree. The performance edge of the Telebits is so great I would not > >consider a V.32 only modem. The defacto standard that I see is PEP and > >not V.32. > > How can you say the defacto standard is PEP when there is only 1 manufacturer > that uses it? As long as you are thinking in the Unix/usenet/uucp context PEP is the defacto standard for > 2400bps communication. If you don't think so, then perform some analysis on info from the uucp maps or other sources. > V.32 is used by every major modem manufacturer and is formally documented > as a standard. "Formally documented" implies "dejure" not "defacto". Sure lots of modem manufactures are supporting V.32, on the other hand, it's not obvious that they're in a big hurry to drop their proprietary protocols... > I have 8 9600+ baud modems, all of which understand V.32 and two of which > understand PEP. I have 16 9600+ modems and ~30 more dispersed, all of which understand PEP and do what I expect of them pretty reliably. Two of these modems also understand V.32 and have been used a handful of times to contact Tymenet or BBS systems. I've never had occasion to make a uucp connection with one. > PEP alone is ok if you want to limit yourself and anybody you will connect > with to a single manufacturer. To me, that is too much of a limitation > even if it is fast. Pleas note that I am not downing PEP, I use it for > my newsfeed, but for interactive connections with lots of different types > of modems, I will always go with a V.32 modem that will also talk V.22 and > V.22bis. It's fairly obvious that each of the Telebit, USR HST and V.32 standards have achieved sufficient penetration in specific market segment that if you expect to interact with one of those segments you are kidding yourself if you can't support the appropriate protocol. > The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive. Hopefully that will change, but it would also help if Telebit would break down and support HST mode as an alternative. There is no obvious technical reason why their modem hardware can't handle the task... -- 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)