CompuServe Thread

#9600 baud nodes

24 messages in this thread
#14746From: Betty Clay/SYSOPFeb 9, 1991 10:37 PM
The 9600 nodes cost $22.50 per hour, plus the 30 cent surcharge. It is cost effective for uploading and downloading software, since you get four times the speed for less than twice the price. I'm not sure it is cheaper for getting and sending messages, simply because of the overhead time in moving from forum to forum. For transferring binaries, though, it is a clear winner.
#14777From: ICD, Inc.Feb 10, 1991 6:42 AM
Betty, I read in the Courier Newsletter that they were using Courier HST Dual Standard modems. Do you know what features (HST, V.42, V.42bis, MNP 4,5) will be enabled and which will be disabled?
#14810From: Betty Clay/SYSOPFeb 10, 1991 2:58 PM
It is my understanding that the CIS 9600 modems have only the v.32 and MNP-4 enabled at the current time. They are still testing these nodes, and will probably leave it that way until all of the initial sites are working well with those settings – but this is only my guess. They do not tell me what they have in mind, you know.
#14830From: Dave ElliottFeb 10, 1991 5:38 PM
We are currently using v.32 bis and asking that members disable MNP entirely. Our CIM programs use a version of data compression (our famous B protocol) that is very close to MNP lvl 5 and tends to conflict with it a times. v.42 will possibly be implemented in the future as we continue to upgrade. You would have to check the modem's initialization string to disable MNP entirely as it differs for most 9600 modems. (check the manual, or call us as we are starting a list). 1-800-848-8990
#14855From: Black Belt SystemsFeb 10, 1991 11:28 PM
Get some HST modems. You're cuttin your own throat here.. there are a huge number of these out there, and that situation is likely to remain static for some time. There are 5 HST's here in town alone, and NONE supprt the "standard", as it's far too new (and to o expensive!) No one plans to upgrade in the near future (and again… after spending over $500 to get 9600+ baud, expecting the little guy to do so is nasty) Just an opinion, from a 9600 baud user.
#14955From: Betty Clay/SYSOPFeb 12, 1991 2:35 PM
Ben, I disagree with you. It seems to me that it is not wise to purchase non-standard modems after the standard has been set. It is true that quite a few people have bought the non-standards HST modems, but they will gradually disappear, and the v.32 modems will be increasing. It will be quite a while, I'm sure, before the changeover is made, but it WILL be made. The dual standard is an excellent choice during this changeover time, of course, but is more expensive.
#14889From: Betty Clay/SYSOPFeb 11, 1991 3:59 PM
Paul Hansen said he had called each of the CIS 9600 nodes with the PPI9600SA,and had had no problems with any of them. His modem settings for all of them was AT&F&C1&D2S95=44. He said that on every node, he got 9600 carrier, V.42 error control and a report of V.42bis.
#14893From: Dave ElliottFeb 11, 1991 4:19 PM
Practical Peripherals has been one of better modems to connect to our system. (At least, we have fewer problems come to us). The &C1&d2 is essential in that modem. Our modems are v.42 bis compliant now, but we are still testing that protocol and have not enabled it in some areas. As for HST, the new standard (v.32 and 42) was adopted by most larger modem manufacturers (including USR with their Dual Standard) and because of the large expenditure in adding 9600 lines, we decided to use what will work in the future. But, I dont make those decisions…. PS-Someone let me know if they "see" the proposed drop in 500 prices.
#14920From: Joe KuzmaFeb 11, 1991 9:35 PM
How would I get V.42 connection with a USrobotics HST Dual Standard? I have the V.42 upgrade, but when I connect via the 9600 node I do not see a V.42 conenction.
#14921From: Dave ElliottFeb 11, 1991 9:40 PM
Certain nodes are not enabled at v.42 or the upgrades have not been installed yet. It is NOT supported yet, so continue to use v.32. It should be supported in the future, and the only ones that work now are those that we have up for testing.
#14991From: Betty Clay/SYSOPFeb 13, 1991 12:11 AM
I received my Practical Peripherals 9600 modem about three weeks ago. I unplugged my 2400 modem from the computer, put the modem cable and the phone line straight into the PM9600SA, and dialed the 9600 node in Dallas. It worked. I did have to delete my T2400 file from Whap! and let it pick that up again through the 9600 node, and now Whap! works just find with the new modem as well. It is just wonderful.
#15030From: Dave ElliottFeb 13, 1991 9:37 PM
Betty, We use a PPI 9600 here at CIS Technical Support to test numbers etc. I am impressed also. A good buy also…. Thanks for putting our "Standard" situation into words so well. Although we'd like to, we cant justify buying USR HST modems that will dwindle in use as v.32 becomes more popular. I just read an Article in PC Sources (another from Ziff I believe) about purchasing a modem that described the differences well. It also stated v.32 bis is now THE standard for 9600 and you should not buy anything else. (Like the Misleading Hayes V-Series, of which most do NOT have v.32 capability.) FEB issue pg 187
#15046From: Jeff SchweigerFeb 13, 1991 11:03 PM
v.32 is the 9600bps standard, v.32bis is a _proposed_ standard for higher speeds and is in final balloting (I believe balloting is due to close on v.32bis on 22 February). I do see v.32 becoming the predominate 9600bps protocol (it already is THE 9600bps _standard_ ).
#15075From: ICD, Inc.Feb 14, 1991 6:21 AM
Have you noticed that, now that v.42 and v.42bis are becoming common, people sellling cheap 2400 baud modems have started adding "v.22bis" in their ads? Of course the are v.22bis. Sheesh, what a sales ploy. They didn't put that in the ads before. I think they are trying to confuse the buyers.
#15140From: Jeff SchweigerFeb 14, 1991 10:52 PM
You're probably correct about trying to confuse the buyers, throwing a bunch of official looking designations about in an add can have that effect.
#15343From: Wayne ColeFeb 17, 1991 2:49 PM
What about the Send/Recieve FAX modem advertised in AmigaWorld with v.29??? What is that??? wmc
#15074From: ICD, Inc.Feb 14, 1991 6:19 AM
I read in a US Robots newsletter that CompuServe was using their Dual Standard modems. Are they the Courier v.32 modems instead?
#15210From: Betty Clay/SYSOPFeb 15, 1991 10:38 PM
Thanks for the reference. I'll be sure to look it up.
#15717From: Doug TownsendFeb 22, 1991 5:58 PM
Concerning the Hayes 9600 V-series. The standard V-series does not have v.32 capabilities. To get that you have to spring the extra $ to get the Hayes 9600 V-series ULTRA modems. I ran into that problem when trying to get into CompuServe at 9600. I had to have v.32 capability. You can tell for sure with the Hayes modems by doing a AT&V1 and seeing if more than 1 'B' option is listed. If only 1 you do not have v.32. Thanks, dt
#15861From: Tom RobinsonFeb 24, 1991 8:02 AM
——————————————————– -> The standard V-series does not have v.32 capabilities.| -> To get that you have to spring the extra $ to get the | -> Hayes 9600 V-series ULTRA modems. | ——————————————————– Actually, Hayes offers a ROM upgrade for their older V-series modems. You can upgrade to v.32 and LAP-M for $50. Sysops get an even better deal. =Tom=
#15885From: Doug TownsendFeb 24, 1991 1:06 PM
Nice to hear. We've got about 9 or 10 that need this upgrade if we decide to use Compuserve for a VAN. How do I get info about the Sysops deal? Do you think that as a network hub "Sysop" I would be able to get this deal given I work for a company? Let me know what you think. DT.
#14899From: Harry CallesisFeb 11, 1991 6:31 PM
I second that! I have a Dual Standard, so the v.32-only won't bother me, but if I can get 14.4K that would be even better. If you already have Dual Standards, enable both sides! Just an opinion … 8^)
#15584From: Jim SakladFeb 20, 1991 11:42 PM
>We are currently using v.32 bis and asking that members disable MNP >entirely. Our CIM programs use a version of data compression (our famous >B protocol) that is very close to MNP lvl 5 and tends to conflict with it >at times. v.42 will possibly be implemented in the future as we continue >to upgrade. Hmmm. Now THAT'S strange. I didn't think V.32bis (the extension of V.32 for 14400bps) was approved as a protocol by the CCITT yet! And the negotiation messages I get at 9600 have regularly been saying "PROTOCOL V.42 LAPM" and "COMPRESSION V.42bis" (although I know the nodes are actually regulated to 9600 bps, despite the compression). Could you review this please? . . . . . JimDoc <<via WHAP!>>
#14847From: ICD, Inc.Feb 10, 1991 10:01 PM
Yes, I know. Just checking to see if there had been any announcements.