rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) (05/31/91)
Any news as to when Telebit will be incorporating into their line of modems (specifically the T2500)? -- Rich Carreiro "My country, right or wrong," ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu is like UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr "My driver, sober or drunk." BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu JITTLOV FOREVER!
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.230350.11249@athena.mit.edu> rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) writes: > > Any news as to when Telebit will be incorporating into their line of > modems (specifically the T2500)? I asked Tech Support and the unofficial reply is the end of the year (3Q?). I heard though, that the T2500 isn't going to be easily upgradeable to v32bis since its 68K doesn't have enough horsepower to handle it. Maybe this means it will take a whole motherboard upgrade instead of just a ROM upgrade. I am ignorant as to what is happening on the other Telebits.... - jiro nakamura jiro@shaman.com // Standard Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Telebit in any way // except as a user of a T2500. -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com The Shaman Group (607) 256-5125 VOICE "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 277-1440 FAX/Data
gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May30.230350.11249@athena.mit.edu> rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) writes: > >Any news as to when Telebit will be incorporating [V.32bis] into their line of >modems (specifically the T2500)? > No word yet. No V.32bis product has been announced, so there's nothing yet about an upgrade. -- .------------------------------------------------------------------------. | Greg Andrews | UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews | | | Internet: gandrews@netcom.COM | `------------------------------------------------------------------------'
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (06/03/91)
gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) writes: >No word yet. No V.32bis product has been announced, so there's nothing >yet about an upgrade. Hmm... USR's products have been out now since December -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
andyb@stb.info.com (Andy B.) (06/05/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > Hmm... USR's products have been out now since December > > > -- > Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 > HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis > regional UUCP mapping coordinator > {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry} I notice you have a plethora of protocols there. Do you have any throughput figures? Andy P.S. mail to you bounces from Bill Blue's site. -- If it's not broken...your girlfriend will get bored with it anyway.
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (06/06/91)
andyb@stb.info.com (Andy B.) writes: >I notice you have a plethora of protocols there. Do you have >any throughput figures? yes using uucp v.32bis - 1970 cps with 16 bit compressed data PEP - 1300-1400 cps and v.32 900-1100 cps.. >P.S. mail to you bounces from Bill Blue's site. I don't know why - we've been mapped now for several years - and haven't had problems from anyone else (that I know of) -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (06/06/91)
/ From: gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) | | No word yet. No V.32bis product has been announced, so there's nothing \ yet about an upgrade. / From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) | \ Hmm... USR's products have been out now since December Yes, and we're very happy both with their performance and the company's representatives bending overbackwards to deal with us. (Kimberly White of US Robotics has done everything but come out to our site and shove the modems into our hands and has always worked like crazy to keep us up to date with US Robotics plans and future products. This sounds like a sales pitch, but she's just been doing an incredible job. I highly recommend dealing with her and US Robotics.) On the other hand, we have a hell of a lot of Telebit products here from previous purchases and we had to threaten to sell off all our Telebit products and move to a completely new modem vendor before Telebit would even *start* talking to us about their plans for future products and then all we got was an assurance that, yes, they were planning a V.32bis product sometime and that an upgrade would be available for the T2500 for some price. Literally. That's all we got. Now I notice that Telebit has re-established itself on the network through the work of Greg Andrews and valuable contributions from other Telbit employees. *YEAH!!!!!* I applaud their re-involvement!!! Thus, I'm stuck in the state of not knowing just what to do ... Since I'm still not hearing anything from Telebit about specifics of T2500 upgrades and since the US Robotics modems work *SO* well and since they're a heck of a lot cheaper, I'm probably going to sell off all of our Telebit modems to other groups at our site and buy US Robotics modems. Oh well. / andyb@stb.info.com (Andy B.) writes: | | I notice you have a plethora of protocols there. Do you have any \ throughput figures? / From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) | | yes using uucp v.32bis - 1970 cps with 16 bit compressed data PEP - \ 1300-1400 cps and v.32 900-1100 cps.. Yet more reason to ditch PEP as soon as possible. It no longer holds the preeminent UUCP throughput position it once did. Don't get me wrong, I *have* liked Telebit products in the past. But one of the *PRIMARY* reasons was because of their upgrade path policies. With scarce or no input from them, I have no options with regard to planning our group's data communications needs. And I just don't understand this. I mean, *WE'RE A BIG TELEBIT SITE*. Just how big do you have to get to rate special service? I'm sure this is just a perturbation in their company service and history. Unfortunately for us, we happen to be in that turbulent region ... And again, lest I appear too negative, they have *DEFINITELY* improved their Net Presense through the work of Greg Andrews and others and that was as the direct result of customer input. Casey
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (06/07/91)
casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > / From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) > | > | yes using uucp v.32bis - 1970 cps with 16 bit compressed data PEP - > \ 1300-1400 cps and v.32 900-1100 cps.. > > Yet more reason to ditch PEP as soon as possible. It no longer holds > the preeminent UUCP throughput position it once did. Well, if all your UUCP connections are like Larry's, that seems reasonable. But the info required to make global decisions like that isn't complete yet. For example, PEP has always shown unusually good performance on poor and international phone lines. A modem vendor or two have posted here that their V.32 performance on such lines is fine. There has also been anecdotal evidence from users that V.32 stinks where PEP worked fine(ish). It really be nice to have some independently confirmed DATA on exactly what kind of performance PEP, V.32 and V.32bis gets over a wide range of different phone connections. There also seems to be a "quality of implementation" issue where using different V.32 implementations would further complicate the issue. I'm sure that most of the major modem manufacturers have this info (seeing as they tend to be the ones with a few of each of everyone's modems :-) but they would not be the best people to be giving impartial advice :-) OK, so how *do* we get this info? Maybe we ought to get a comp.dcom.modems super-test going ? -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (06/07/91)
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >Well, if all your UUCP connections are like Larry's, that seems reasonable. Larry (myself) operates a BBS supporting zmodem, ymodem, xmodem, sealink, kermit and uucp --- not just UUCP. v.32bis is a winner using every protocol. v.32bis also lowers the baud with noise, and raises it after the line quality improves. >also been anecdotal evidence from users that V.32 stinks where PEP >worked fine(ish). what about v.32bis? v.32bis changed the baud depending on the quality of the line. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (06/08/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >also been anecdotal evidence from users that V.32 stinks where PEP > >worked fine(ish). > what about v.32bis? v.32bis changed the baud depending on the > quality of the line. I wasn't that worried about the up/down speed changes (though it is valuable) -- I was thinking of the kind of lines where PEP manages to hold a connection where V.22 would fail to connect. I think was it Peter da Silva who had a few of those ? "PEP at 200 cps is better than no connection at all" is an important consideration. I really would like to know how well V.32is and its implementations would compare in situations like that. Of course I'm hoping that V.32bis will win. If PEP wins, that means sticking to UUCP. If V.32{,bis} wins, we get to switch to IP. None the less, if PEP wins, I'll continue to buy PEP, because reliable UUCP is much better than unreliable IP. That's why I'd like to see some real data. -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.193033.7604@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes:
If PEP wins, that means sticking to UUCP. If V.32{,bis} wins, we
get to switch to IP.
Or you could go ahead and switch to IP now on your existing PEP
modems, and later begin using CCITT modems on lines where you find
that they can provide acceptable service quality. That scheme would
get you started sooner using IP and get you some practice in link
management, debugging, and all that sort of stuff. You wouldn't be
changing everything at once, allowing for more of a gradual phase-in.johnv@tower.actrix.gen.nz (John Veldthuis) (06/08/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun6.193254.3886@robobar.co.uk> by ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo): > > Well, if all your UUCP connections are like Larry's, that seems reasonable. > But the info required to make global decisions like that isn't complete > yet. For example, PEP has always shown unusually good performance on > poor and international phone lines. A modem vendor or two have posted > here that their V.32 performance on such lines is fine. There has > also been anecdotal evidence from users that V.32 stinks where PEP > worked fine(ish). > > It really be nice to have some independently confirmed DATA on exactly > what kind of performance PEP, V.32 and V.32bis gets over a wide range of > different phone connections. There also seems to be a "quality of > implementation" issue where using different V.32 implementations > would further complicate the issue. > Well I found that PEP got around 18000 bps on my very noisy toll connection to my news feed. It sometimes went down to 9000 bps but when I lost the PEP modem on the other end I had to go and use V.32. I never once got this to work over the toll line and always have to use the V.42 error coreection to get a good transfer. I have never once got any errors come through with the PEP but with the V.32 with V.42 the transfer sometimes stops in the middle of a file and hangs there. Most times it starts up again with a barrage of wrong packets sent but sometimes it drops the connection (PEP has never dropped a connection). -- *** John Veldthuis, NZAmigaUG. johnv@tower.actrix.gen.nz ***
andyb@stb.info.com (Andy B.) (06/09/91)
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > In article <1991Jun7.193033.7604@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > If PEP wins, that means sticking to UUCP. If V.32{,bis} wins, we > get to switch to IP. > > Or you could go ahead and switch to IP now on your existing PEP > modems, and later begin using CCITT modems on lines where you find > that they can provide acceptable service quality. That scheme would > get you started sooner using IP and get you some practice in link > management, debugging, and all that sort of stuff. You wouldn't be > changing everything at once, allowing for more of a gradual phase-in. Pardon my busting in, but I was hoping you'd be able to answer a question. Do you mean dialup IP just as dialup uucp is done for news/mail transfers now? I didn't know you could do that. -- If it's not broken...your girlfriend will get bored with it anyway.
avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim Antonov) (06/11/91)
In <1991Jun7.193033.7604@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >"PEP at 200 cps >is better than no connection at all" is an important consideration. >I really would like to know how well V.32is and its implementations >would compare in situations like that. Hm. Our team has sufficient experience fighting against poor quality lines. PEP simply works. V.32 sucks. Cannot say much about V.32bis (never tried) but my guess the result will be exactly the same. The problem with adverse lines is that they may vary in a zillion of ways. Some lines works fine with higher frequencies but have terrible 50Hz noise. Some lines cannot pass higher tones. Some lines have awful echoes from non-balanced intertrunk connections. Some comes through various multiplexing devices. V.XX protocols require line able to carry well-defined band of frequencies and practically cannot adopt their energy/frequency distribution to the actual line conditions. Multiband nature of PEP allows it. Lowering speed of V.32bis connection cannot help to deal with line noised at the carrier frequency (for example). PEP simply turnes this band off. I can imagine a lot of realistic line conditions making V.32bis useless while PEP still can push data. Actually I've seen a line V.22 sucks at but PEP works! >If PEP wins, that means sticking to UUCP. If V.32{,bis} >wins, we get to switch to IP. None the less, if PEP wins, I'll continue >to buy PEP, because reliable UUCP is much better than unreliable IP. Wrong. Of course, PEP shows huge turnaround time making interactive sessions painful (but not making it impossible at all). Surprisingly file transfer over PEP/CSLIP is not much worse than over PEP/UUCP (about 15% loss). What I really wish to see is true duplex PEP - sharing the part of channels between directions. Dynamically, of course. I think the only reason why PEP is half-duplex is simple - transiever (sp?) scheme requires only one DSP switched from transmit to receiving. Duplex scheme would take a couple of DSPs or one with more units inside. Still I hope Telebit will make such a beast - to defend these horses designed by a committee. Vadim Antonov DEMOS, Moscow, USSR
RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ("Roger Fajman") (06/11/91)
I don't have experience trying to use really poor quality lines. However, it seems obvious to me that the performance of Telebit's V.32 implementations isn't necessarily the same as those of other manufacturers. Certainly not all V.32 modems were equal in the Data Communications Magazine tests.
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (06/11/91)
John Veldthuis (johnv@tower.actrix.gen.nz ) wrote: >Well I found that PEP got around 18000 bps on my very noisy >toll connection to my news feed. Don't trust xferstats! -- Geoffrey Welsh - Operator, Izot's Swamp BBS (FidoNet 1:221/171) root@zswamp.uucp or ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root 602-66 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, ON, N2M 5E6 Canada (519)741-9553 "He who claims to know everything can't possibly know much" -me
rstory@xopen.co.uk (Robert Story) (06/11/91)
From article <1991Jun6.193254.3886@robobar.co.uk>, by ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo): > casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > >> / From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) >> | >> | yes using uucp v.32bis - 1970 cps with 16 bit compressed data PEP - >> \ 1300-1400 cps and v.32 900-1100 cps.. >> >> Yet more reason to ditch PEP as soon as possible. It no longer holds >> the preeminent UUCP throughput position it once did. > > Well, if all your UUCP connections are like Larry's, that seems reasonable. > But the info required to make global decisions like that isn't complete > yet. For example, PEP has always shown unusually good performance on > poor and international phone lines. A modem vendor or two have posted > here that their V.32 performance on such lines is fine. There has > also been anecdotal evidence from users that V.32 stinks where PEP > worked fine(ish). > > It really be nice to have some independently confirmed DATA on exactly > what kind of performance PEP, V.32 and V.32bis gets over a wide range of > different phone connections. There also seems to be a "quality of > implementation" issue where using different V.32 implementations > would further complicate the issue. > I agree. Last year at ths time I was testing USR and TB modems. The USR's just could not handle the noisy lines our company encountered. In fact at one point I tried the test suggested in this news conference. That is pick up an attached handset while the modem is in mid-transfer and say "Polly want a cracker?". The USR gave up whereas the TB regained its compusure and continued. Also USR's HST stinks with UUCP and their V.32 was also line sensitive. On the plus side they did give us great support during all of this including flying 2 people to one of the problem test sites. Of course the final deal was for 275 modems so I can't say as I blame them. :-) Regards, Robert. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Story X/Open Company Limited UUCP : ...uunet!{mcsun!ukc,utai}!xopen!rstory Apex Plaza, Forbury Road EMail: r.story@xopen.co.uk Reading, England, RG1 1AX Voice: +(44) (0)734 508311 FAX: +(44) (0)734 500110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Regards, Robert. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Story X/Open Company Limited UUCP : ...uunet!{mcsun!ukc,utai}!xopen!rstory Apex Plaza, Forbury Road EMail: r.story@xopen.co.uk Reading, England, RG1 1AX
rstory@xopen.co.uk (Robert Story) (06/11/91)
From article <1991Jun8.235355.23219@stb.info.com>, by andyb@stb.info.com (Andy B.): > bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >> In article <1991Jun7.193033.7604@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >> If PEP wins, that means sticking to UUCP. If V.32{,bis} wins, we >> get to switch to IP. >> >> Or you could go ahead and switch to IP now on your existing PEP >> modems, and later begin using CCITT modems on lines where you find >> that they can provide acceptable service quality. That scheme would >> get you started sooner using IP and get you some practice in link >> management, debugging, and all that sort of stuff. You wouldn't be >> changing everything at once, allowing for more of a gradual phase-in. > > Pardon my busting in, but I was hoping you'd be able to answer a > question. Do you mean dialup IP just as dialup uucp is done Yes I would like to hear how to do this too. Directions anyone? Regards, Robert. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Story X/Open Company Limited UUCP : ...uunet!{mcsun!ukc,utai}!xopen!rstory Apex Plaza, Forbury Road EMail: r.story@xopen.co.uk Reading, England, RG1 1AX Voice: +(44) (0)734 508311 FAX: +(44) (0)734 500110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Regards, Robert. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Story X/Open Company Limited UUCP : ...uunet!{mcsun!ukc,utai}!xopen!rstory Apex Plaza, Forbury Road EMail: r.story@xopen.co.uk Reading, England, RG1 1AX
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun10.175931.11466@hq.demos.su> avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim Antonov) writes: > Lowering speed of V.32bis connection cannot help to deal with line > noised at the carrier frequency (for example). PEP simply turnes this > band off. I can imagine a lot of realistic line conditions making V.32bis > useless while PEP still can push data. Actually I've seen a line V.22 > sucks at but PEP works! Out here in NYNEX land (even worse than phone lines in the USSR? no....), I've had a line that couldn't even hold 300 baud (Bell 103, I think). PEP held it like a champ (which was why I bought it, but then I moved and don't really need it). What I need know is v32bis for my T2500..... Please Telebit!!!!! - Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 256-5125 VOICE "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 277-1440 FAX/Data
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (06/16/91)
avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim Antonov) writes: >Hm. Our team has sufficient experience fighting against poor quality >lines. PEP simply works. V.32 sucks. Cannot say much about V.32bis (never well v.32bis holds a line much better than v.32 (at least the USR v.32bis modems do - using their ASL). We supply a backbone UUCP feed of around 5 megs a day (compressed 16 bit traffic) using v.32bis doing UUCP and that connection is quite noisy - but throughput runs right at 1490 cps. PEP on the same connection runs around 1250 cps. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) (06/23/91)
In article <98879@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > ... > On the other hand, we have a hell of a lot of Telebit products here >from previous purchases and we had to threaten to sell off all our >Telebit products and move to a completely new modem vendor before Telebit >would even *start* talking to us about their plans for future products >and then all we got was an assurance that, yes, they were planning a >V.32bis product sometime and that an upgrade would be available for the >T2500 for some price. Literally. That's all we got. > ... > Thus, I'm stuck in the state of not knowing just what to do ... Since >I'm still not hearing anything from Telebit about specifics of T2500 >upgrades and since the US Robotics modems work *SO* well and since >they're a heck of a lot cheaper, I'm probably going to sell off all of >our Telebit modems to other groups at our site and buy US Robotics modems. >Oh well. > ... > Don't get me wrong, I *have* liked Telebit products in the past. But >one of the *PRIMARY* reasons was because of their upgrade path policies. >With scarce or no input from them, I have no options with regard to >planning our group's data communications needs. And I just don't >understand this. I mean, *WE'RE A BIG TELEBIT SITE*. Just how big do >you have to get to rate special service? > ... A couple of nights ago, Telebit was both demonstrating products and making a technical presentation at a meeting of Unigroup of NY. The v32.bis upgrade question came up, of course, and I did hear, from the mouths of TB folk, that there would probably be an upgrade for about $249.00. Whether that's an indiscretion, or just informed speculation on these guys' part, I can't say. Jean-Pierre Radley Unix in NYC jpr@jpr.com jpradley!jpr CIS: 72160,1341