pthomas@arecibo.aero.org (Peter L. Thomas) (06/06/91)
YA FAQ--sorry! My rewsreader refuses to disgorge previous messages, no matter what threats I direct towards it. I'm trying to connect to the Intel modem at 9600 v.42bis, a feat which I think both are theoretically capable of. The Intel modem responds with a tone I'm not familiar with (it sounds like the old v.22bis (?) tone with a series of "clicks" interspersed in i) bee-click-bee-click-bee-click, and then it falls back and we get a regular 2400 connection. Of course it gets ugly then, because I think I get a 2400/ARQ connection--and the other end thinks differently--results in a hang. Sigh--any suggestions? My registers follow: -----cut here----- AT&V ACTIVE PROFILE: B1 E1 L2 M1 N1 Q0 T V1 W1 X4 Y0 &C1 &D0 &G0 &J0 &K3 &Q5 &R0 &S0 &T4 &X0 &Y0 S00:000 S01:000 S02:043 S03:013 S04:010 S05:008 S06:002 S07:030 S08:002 S09:006 S10:014 S11:095 S12:050 S18:000 S25:005 S26:001 S36:007 S37:000 S38:020 S44:003 S46:002 S48:007 S49:008 S50:016 S63:010 S64:001
mehdi@armon.rain.com (Mehdi Attaran) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun5.211611.7156@aero.org> pthomas@arecibo.aero.org (Peter L. Thomas) writes: >I'm trying to connect to the Intel modem at 9600 v.42bis, a feat which I >think both are theoretically capable of. The Intel modem responds with a >tone I'm not familiar with (it sounds like the old v.22bis (?) tone with a >series of "clicks" interspersed in i) bee-click-bee-click-bee-click, and then >it falls back and we get a regular 2400 connection. The Intel 9600EX modem is a V.32 modem with V.42/V.42bis and MNP 4/5 capabilities. Your Hayes SM 9600 V-Series does not have V.32 capability, and can only connect at 2400 baud to the Intel 9600EX (and other V.32 capable) modems. The Hayes SM 9600 V-Series can only connect at 9600 baud to other Hayes SM 9600 V-Series modems. (That includes the Hayes Ultra) Note that the Hayes V-Series Ultra can connect at 9600 baud to the Intel 9600EX with V.42bis. Intel BBS is running 8 Intel 9600EX modems at ++(503) 645-6275. -- Mehdi -- -- ..!uunet!m2xenix!armon!mehdi mehdi@armon.rain.com (Mehdi Attaran)
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun5.211611.7156@aero.org>, pthomas@arecibo.aero.org (Peter L. Thomas) writes: > I'm trying to connect to the Intel modem at 9600 v.42bis, a feat which I > think both are theoretically capable of. The Intel modem responds with a > tone I'm not familiar with (it sounds like the old v.22bis (?) tone with a > series of "clicks" interspersed in i) bee-click-bee-click-bee-click, and then The "clicks" in the answer tone are phase reversals. These phase reversals cause any echo cancellers in the long distance network to be disabled. V.32 modems do this, because they provide their own echo cancellation capability (which is more accurate than the network's, since the network is only concerned about it being "good enough for voice"). The phase reversals do not affect operation at other speeds. > it falls back and we get a regular 2400 connection. This happens because your Intel modem supports only CCITT V.32-compliant modulation at 9600bps, which your VSM9600 supports only Hayes' Express 96 proprietary fast-turnaround ping-pong modulation at 9600. These are not compatible. The highest speed the modems have in common is 2400bps. > Of course it gets ugly > then, because I think I get a 2400/ARQ connection--and the other end thinks > differently--results in a hang. That shouldn't happen. Both modems support V.42 and V.42bis, so you should get a good connection. Your VSM9600 registers are set properly for a V.42bis connection, so I don't have any good ideas. Have you tried setting &Q0, and see if you can connect to that modem in plain old 2400 without error control? It would be an interesting experiment. If that works, try MNP alone, by setting &Q5 S36=4 S46=0 S48=128 (for MNP4; try S46=2 for MNP5). If that works, try forcing V.42 alone, using &Q5 S36=0 S46=136 S48=7 (or S46=138 for V.42bis). Let me know what you find. -- Toby -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter C. Sun) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun6.062755.168@armon.rain.com> mehdi@armon.rain.com (Mehdi Attaran) writes: > >The Intel 9600EX modem is a V.32 modem with V.42/V.42bis and MNP 4/5 >capabilities. Your Hayes SM 9600 V-Series does not have V.32 capability, and >can only connect at 2400 baud to the Intel 9600EX (and other V.32 capable) >modems. The Hayes SM 9600 V-Series can only connect at 9600 baud to other >Hayes SM 9600 V-Series modems. (That includes the Hayes Ultra) So your saying that my Hayes SM V-series is nearly worthless? While it appears that you are quite correct, its something that I wish I had known before... Why do you suppose that Hayes (who have long been respected in the field of modem-ry) would release this loser? I was in such hopes of getting my board up at 9600 baud! Oh well, theres always HST... --- signature out on repair
scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun8.080524.16623@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter C. Sun) writes: >In article <1991Jun6.062755.168@armon.rain.com> mehdi@armon.rain.com (Mehdi Attaran) writes: >> >>The Intel 9600EX modem is a V.32 modem with V.42/V.42bis and MNP 4/5 >>capabilities. Your Hayes SM 9600 V-Series does not have V.32 capability, and >>can only connect at 2400 baud to the Intel 9600EX (and other V.32 capable) >>modems. The Hayes SM 9600 V-Series can only connect at 9600 baud to other >>Hayes SM 9600 V-Series modems. (That includes the Hayes Ultra) > So your saying that my Hayes SM V-series is nearly worthless? >While it appears that you are quite correct, its something that I >wish I had known before... Why do you suppose that Hayes (who have >long been respected in the field of modem-ry) would release this >loser? I was in such hopes of getting my board up at 9600 baud! >Oh well, theres always HST... Generally, as far as I can tell. I just finished dealing with Computerland to get modems to connect a LAN in Toronto with a LAN in Ottawa. First they wanted us to use Ventel 2400 baud modems. Sorry I said. This is a long distance call we are talking about here. (Also I have a ventel 2400 at home and I have yet to make it work satisfactorily/ I suppose if I got them to sell me a ventel, then I would get some manuals :-)) The only high speed modems they sell are the Hayes SM 9600 V-series. They wanted $975 each for them ($CA) I personnally knew of the problem you mention (ie. noone else talks to them) I couldn't get that out of the computerland rep. I asked, what about telebit? sure, 2500s will run you about $CA1250. But we won't support them at all (computerland does our support - another horror story for another day :-() Ok. I said. are there any modems that are SORT of standard that you can sell and will support. How about a Hayes Ultra 96 for $CA1050. And that's what we got. For $75 more than the V-series. That's how hayes keeps selling the v-series. They get their dealers not to tell you about real modems. For $75 I got a modem that will talk to almost anyone intstead of noone. sigh. BTW. does anyone know how to connect a ultra 96 to a v-series. I can only seem to connect at 2400 baud. (someone else I know has a v-series - he has never made it connect to anyone ever as far as I know at anything more than 2400) apparently v-series 9600 is called hayes ping-pong and its half-duplex v.32. scott ps. before I sound like a hayes-basher, I have to say that the ultra96 seems like a pretty good v.32 modem. Lots of features. -- Scott J.M. Campbell scott@skypod.guild.org Skypod Communications Inc. ..!gatech!dscatl!daysinns!skypod!scott 1001 Bay Street, Suite 1210 ..!uunet!utai!lsuc!becker!skypod!scott Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059 ..!epas.utoronto.ca!nyama!skypod!scott
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (06/12/91)
In a letter to All, Peter C. Sun (psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu ) wrote: > So your saying that my Hayes SM V-series is nearly >worthless? >While it appears that you are quite correct, its something >that I >wish I had known before... Why do you suppose that Hayes >(who have >long been respected in the field of modem-ry) would release >this >loser? I was in such hopes of getting my board up at 9600 >baud! >Oh well, theres always HST... <sigh> The HST suffers from *precisely* the same malady as the Hayes V-9600, namely that it will speak only to its brethren. Sadly (for you), the HST was cheaper and caught on more in the BBS world, where you're likely to need a 9600+ bps modem. Had the V-9600 been favoured by the early BBS SysOps, you'd probably be wondering today why USR would have released "such a loser"... but in truth, the V-9600 found its niche and Hayes, I'm sure, doesn't regret it for one moment. -- 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
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun8.080524.16623@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter C. Sun) writes: > So your saying that my Hayes SM V-series is nearly worthless? > While it appears that you are quite correct, its something that I > wish I had known before... Why do you suppose that Hayes (who have > long been respected in the field of modem-ry) would release this > loser? I was in such hopes of getting my board up at 9600 baud! When the Hayes V-series Smartmodem 9600 was released, V.32 modems were selling for more than $2,500. There was, nevertheless, a strong demand for throughput higher than 2400. Several companies responded to this demand by producing proprietary, non-standard modulation schemes for 9600 communications: Hayes (fast-turnaround ping-pong based on V.32 constellation, in the VSM9600), USRobotics (asymmetrical 9600/300bps based on V.32 constellation, in the Courier HST), Microcom (fast-turnaround ping-pong based on V.29, in the AX/9624c), Racal-Vadic (auto switching between V.22bis and V.29, in the 9600VP), Telebit (PEP, in the Trailblazer), and many others. ALL of these companies recognized that they were going non-standard, and continued to work on ways to make V.32 modems cheaper. Now, we've managed to get the price of V.32-compliant modems down to a level that most users can afford. In order to provide a transition from their proprietary modems to standard V.32, most of these companies produced (and still do produce) modems that implement both the proprietary scheme and V.32: Hayes (Ultra 96), USR (Dual Standard), Telebit (T2500), etc. There continue to be many users, however, for whom the capabilities provided by the proprietary scheme is all they need. For example, many corporations use the V-series Smartmodem 9600, because their modems are only used for internal applications such as accessing mainframes via terminal emulators, and they don't require V.32 compliance. The proprietary modems cost less, because they're cheaper to make than V.32. If you don't need V.32, why buy it? But if you're intending to run a BBS, or call BBSes and public networks and information services at 9600bps, you NEED V.32. If you went to a computer store and told them your requirements, and they sold you a V-series 9600, they made a mistake, and you should try to get them to take the modem back and buy an Ultra 96 instead so that you get V.32 capability. Since the V-series Smartmodem 9600 has been one of the best selling products EVER for Hayes, and since there are tens of thousands of completely satisfied users, I hardly think you can call it a "loser". The fact that it doesn't satisfy YOUR requirements doesn't mean that Hayes made a mistake, or that it doesn't satisfy anybody else's requirements. If you're a BBS sysop, I suggest you contact Randy Cooper in the Hayes Sysop Support department (hayes!rcooper@uunet.uu.net, or on our BBS at 404-446-6336 or 800-874-2937, or on the Online with Hayes Forum on CompuServe [GO HAYFORUM], or on the Hayes Roundtable on Genie). Hayes offers our products for 50% off list price for qualified sysops, as well as other special support programs. And, of course, I'm always hanging around here to answer your questions, too. -- Toby -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
larry@zztop.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (06/12/91)
scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) writes: >BTW. does anyone know how to connect a ultra 96 to a v-series. I can only >seem to connect at 2400 baud. (someone else I know has a v-series - he they will also connect at 1200 and 300 bauds as well (grin) -- Larry Snyder larry@zztop.rn.com
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (06/13/91)
In a letter to All, Larry Snyder (larry@zztop.rn.com ) wrote: >scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) writes: >BTW. does anyone know how to connect a ultra 96 to a v-series. I can only >seem to connect at 2400 baud. (someone else I know has a v-series - he >they will also connect at 1200 and 300 bauds as well (grin) There's no need to be nasty; I am pretty sure that an Ultra should connect to a V-9600 using Hayes' proprietary ping-pong carrier. -- 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
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (06/14/91)
In article <201.2855A6B4@zswamp.uucp> root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: >In a letter to All, Peter C. Sun (psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu ) wrote: > >Oh well, theres always HST... > > <sigh> The HST suffers from *precisely* the same malady as the Hayes >V-9600, namely that it will speak only to its brethren. Sadly (for you), the >HST was cheaper and caught on more in the BBS world, where you're likely to >need a 9600+ bps modem. Considering that the vast majority of BBS systems are running an HST for high speed, I don't think that's going to be a problem for him. There's a big difference between going with a "standard" proprietary format and a nonstandard one. If he really needs to he can buy a Dual Standard and get the HST and V.32bis protocols, although experience in San Diego shows that the V.32 is going to be fairly unused for a while - most of the users have figured out that they can call more places with an HST as well. I maintain a BBS list for San Diego... I don't have the exact stats on high speed modems, I haven't done any counts for a month or more, but for modems that are faster than 2400, it pretty much breaks down as: %85 USR HST %8 V.32 (bis) %6 CompuCom %1 Other These should still be fairly accurate, it doesn't change that much from month to month -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
Mike.Learn@f430.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Learn) (06/16/91)
> Considering that the vast majority of BBS systems are running a HST for high > speed, I don't think that's going to be a problem for him. There's a big > difference between going with a "standard" proprietary format and a > nonstandard one. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Standard" propretary format. hehe. No flame here, but the phrasing is kind of interesting. > that are faster than 2400, it pretty much breaks down as: > %85 USR HST > %8 V.32 (bis) > %6 CompuCom > %1 Other This may be true in the BBS community (especially where Fidonet is involved), but from what I understand, 82 or 84% of all modems sold are v.32 compatible. .\\ike -- Mike Learn via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!430!Mike.Learn INET: Mike.Learn@f430.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (06/20/91)
In article <297872.285F3168@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> you write: > > Considering that the vast majority of BBS systems are running a HST > > for high speed, I don't think that's going to be a problem for him. There's > > a big difference between going with a "standard" proprietary format > > and a nonstandard one. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > "Standard" propretary format. hehe. No flame here, but the phrasing > is kind of interesting. Well, HST is a de facto standard in the FidoNet world. If you don't have HST there, you often don't have the option of high speed. I am reminded of a wall poster from Intergraph which had a large chart of all sorts of communications protocols. The caption at the bottom read "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them." cjs -- | "I suspect the principle difference between us is | that I spend a lot of time walking around the tree | trying to find the best way to shake it while you Curt Sampson | are more concerned with whether an axe or a chain-
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (06/22/91)
In a letter to All, Curt Sampson (curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca ) wrote: >Well, HST is a de facto standard in the FidoNet world. >If you don't have HST there, you often don't have the >option of high speed. While you're basically right, I thought that I should take the opportunity to fgrep the FidoNet nodelist for the HST, V32[bis], and PEP flags. The envelope, please: PEP (Telebit Trailblazer multicarrier): 209 V32 (V.32 and V.32bis): 3058 HST: 4078 OK, the HST wins... but it won't be long until V.32 is the standard of choice, especially with the number of HST sites that use Dual Standard modems. NOTE: Sites using dual standard modems may have been counted twice, e.g. a T2500 will be counted as both PEP and V.32; an HST Dual Standard will count as both HST and V.32; Hayes V-Series Ultra Smartmodem 9600 will be counted as V.32. -- 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