cec@cup.portal.com (Cerafin E Castillo) (12/20/90)
alvin@cup.portal.com writes: >A friend and I bought Telebit T2500 modems about three months ago. We have >never gotten them to work anywhere near what they are supposed to do. >[deleted] >I spent about 14 hours a day seven days a week for three weeks trying to >get it to work. Best results are about 4800 baud telebit to telebit. >[deleted] >Called customer service and asked if there was a bulleting board that I >could call to practice on. They said no, they used to have one but shut it >down. >[deleted] >My experience was that you read the manual and found that you have about >a hundred switches... Essentially, all wrong combination = failure. >I read a lot on the net, and it is apparent that if one can find the right >combination the machine is one of the best on the market for its purposes. > >alvin A Telebit modem can be a very high-priced introduction to Data Communications. It is most definitely not for the 'faint-of-heart'. I don't know how many times I have read or heard this very same story, while I was with Telebit and now that I am no longer there. As I have stated before, in reality there are only about 85 S-registers in the Telebit modem of which only 15 are truely needed for configuration of the modem, IN UNIX ENVIRONMENTS! For home PC use, the number of registers needed are considerably less. I would never describe any Telebit modem as "plug-and-play". I don't think the manual helps much either. Telebit's lack of a BBS is strange. There is no BBS which offers UUCP or open login; BUT there is a demonstration system which is based on HyperACCESS software and normally is used with the Telebit Demonstration System (TDS- a watered-down version of HyperACCESS...) which is available from Telebit (to their vendors and from their vendors to end users ???) for about < $50. This system normally has a T2500 GF7.00 modem on it, from the last time I used it. I'm surprised Tech Support didn't mention this system or software testing option. I fear that loyal Telebit modem users will respond to your posting with the usual high praise and application stories, or maybe PCMag-style usage problems and empathy. I would like to offer my services, as an authorized Telebit VAR in making your modem work for you. Fellow net users who have read my postings have sent e-mail with specifics as to their Telebit problems. Please do not hesitate to do the same, everybody, I will do my best to answer via e-mail or phone. Yes, I know what kind of onslaught I am risking; while at Telebit I received no less than 50 e-mails a month regarding support issues. I'm sorry to hear that this e-mail support has seemingly fallen by the wayside at Telebit. bob@MorningStar.Com writes: >>In article <36853@cup.portal.com> cec@cup.portal.com (Cerafin E Castillo) >>writes: >> SLIP spoofing, from what Telebit has told me, will never exist. >> the Telebit NetBlazer is the current SLIP/CSLIP/PPP solution >> offered by Telebit. >> >These are two different issues! One decides which bits to put on the >wire, the other is the IP circuit handling logic. > [deleted] >A NetBlazer would indeed be a good thing to have in your office, on >the receiving end of all the remote workers' dialins. It would also >be a good thing for use between geographically-separated office sites >that have occasional traffic, configured for on-demand connections. > >But even the base model is a little expensive for use with a single >host, which is all most folks have at home...[deleted] >It's better for that case to implement on-demand dialup IP under that >host's native operating system. I'd be surprised if a future KA9Q or >NCSA or UNIX PPP implementation didn't contain that logic. >[deleted] >...The NetBlazer is just a smart router box that still needs to >put the bits on the wire, and that's a modem's job. All the >performance attributes of PEP or V.32/V.42/V.42bis will still be >apparent (is that a nice way to put it? :-). Only the IP circuits >will be easier to manage. I am in complete agreement with these observations. From the viewpoint of a skilled Sys Admin or programmer, dial-up IP is fairly simple to implement (caveat: depending on which system and what dial-up IP protocol ;-). While at Telebit, this project's focus was to bring dial-up IP capabilities to those users not skilled in dial-up IP implementation nor modem use. Furthermore, there was, at the time, a problem in obtaining source/binaries from the Internet or Internet sites for non-Internet/non-UUCP sites and end-users. AND those users stuck with non-UNIX systems OR lack of UNIX sources (license) who could not install the dial-up IP drivers were also tired of waiting for dial-up IP capabilities. For all these people, the NetBlazer's modem management, modem resource sharing, dial-up IP virtual circuits, TCP/IP- Inverse Muxing (TCP/IP-IM), and the ability to have ethernet, modems, and 56 Kbps interfaces on one box; makes dial-up IP a viable option or reality. The cost is high to the end-user (home system user), this is true, but I am confident that dial-up IP virtual circuit capabilities will be available, quite soon, both inside and outside of freeware-based solutions. TCP/IP-IM gives a good, but expensive, alternative to single modem usage with dial-up IP and the ability to add to this Integrated Communications System (ICS), as your WAN needs grow (ie modems, 56 Kbps) keeps this product from being completely outdated (I wish this was the case with ALL Telebit upgradeable products...:-(. billg@hitachi.UUCP writes: >> A NetBlazer would indeed be a good thing to have in your office, on >> >> But even the base model is a little expensive for use with a single > >But if a user has a Sun at home, or anything that supports SLIP, they >won't need a NetBlazer, just an expensive, for now, modem. > >Bill Gundry I also agree, but SLIP is S-L-O-W! I think that CSLIP (VJ hdr Compression) and PPP with VJ hdr comp., are better alternatives. KA9Q [NOS] (PPP.12) has been the best program that I have used (in DOS) to do all of these protocols. Thanks, Katie Stevens! The RTS/CTS flow control option makes this program modem friendly and PPP is a definite plus! I hope that this is one of the first programs to get virtual circuit capabilities for NetBlazer compatibility, as well as being ported and supported in more systems! --Please accept my apologies for so much verbage and any marginally sounding sales plugs. This posting is meant to be informational. =============================================================================== Cerafin E. Castillo || //\\ ||\\ || Network Consultant || //__\\ || \\ || Los Altos Los Altos Networks || // ---\\|| \\|| Networks 340 Second St. #6 ||___// \ | \ | Los Altos, CA 94022 (415) 941-8031 UUCP: {apple,sun,uunet}!portal!cup.portal.com!cec INTERNET: cec@cup.portal.com "...No hay mal que por bien no venga..." ===============================================================================