Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!xylogics!loverso
From: loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Searching for inexpensive V.32 9600 bps modems (was cheap telebits)...
Message-ID: <8612@xenna.Xylogics.COM>
Date: 5 Mar 90 18:07:54 GMT
References: <8398@potomac.ads.com> <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> <9977@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Reply-To: loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso)
Organization: Xylogics, Inc., Burlington MA
Lines: 21

In article <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
> The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive.

The really expensive part is the bit-pump.  I.e., the T2500 (and newer-style
TB+) have a considerable amount of computing power.  And this is why the
T1000 can't do better than 9600bps; it just doesn't have the power!

In article <9977@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) writes:
> ...it would also help if Telebit would break down and support HST mode
> as an alternative.

Why?  What would HST give them that PEP and/or V.32 already doesn't?
They've already got one proprietaty protocol - why give into another
vendor's creation?  Besides, PEP has the ability to hold onto a
connection that V.32 (with or without MNP) would drop.  I.e., lossy
lines or calling to the UK.  From home, I most always use V.32 on
my T2500, but during one particularly bad thunderstorm, I had such
severe crackling on the line that only PEP would keep the connection
going (for 5 hours).

John