--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCJ00014 Date: 08/10/95 From: ANTHONY HILL Time: 02:00pm \/To: BILL CHEEK (Read 3 times) Subj: v.FC for new ZyXELs BC> there are 100% v.34 or none. My online modems are the BC> Hayes Optima 288 v.34/v.FC+FAX, neither of which, in my BC> opinion, have a real good implementation of v.34. That's an understatement. Out of the major modem manufacturers, Hayes has by far the worst implementation of v.34. At the moment, they simply aren't working right with any modems.. And some people were wondering why Hayes went bankrupt :>. Actualy it's kinda intersting since Hayes had one, if not the best implemetnation of vFC out of any modem manufactuer. BC> Therefore, in conclusion, the v.FC really makes Life much BC> sweeter for me. It also makes Life sweeter for my BBS BC> callers, especially those who hit v.FC, which otherwise BC> would negotiate to v.32. Are these plain v.FC modems? No, BC> not all, that much is for sure. Some are v.34/v.FC........ Modems that support v.34 properly really don't have to worry about whether or not they'll negotiate vFC connections. If both modems have a functional impelemtnation of v.34, then they'll negotiate a v.34 connection. The only people who need to worry about a BBS that runs modems which don't support vFC are those who are still running vFC only modems, or those who are running modems with poor implementations of vFC. BC> You and a number of other astute people say that. So clearly that means BC> something. But why? Why is v.34 so "rubust" and how does BC> it show? I can't tell that by any empirical means. I Get yourself a modem with a good impelemetnation of v.34 (USR Courier, Motorola, AT&T Comsphere, etc.), then compare it to you're Hayes' implementation of vFC. I think you'll find that the v.34 modem will outperform the Hayes in almost every circumstance. BC> release, it was corrected. So there is something to what BC> you say about "good implementations of v.34", but at the BC> final analysis, I can't see where v.FC does any harm, and I BC> do see daily where high speed communications take place BC> thanks to v.FC. So I really hope ZyXEL implements v.FC as BC> they said "was being considered". Well I guess you haven't checked out the price it would cost Zyxel to implement vFC. First they have to purchase the specs. and rights to use the code form Rockwell, then they have to program their DSP code, then they have to test it, then they have to fix their code to get it working, etc. And for what? A protocol that is dieing REALLY fast. BJ> Th only good argument (and I do think it is a good one) for the BJ> inclusion of V.FC is compatibility with the many, MANY V.FC-only BJ> modems out there. Anyoen who bought a vFC only modem should have bought it with the intention of upgrading. It was well known in the industry that vFC just wasn't going to last. It had a place in the industry for a while, but not anymore. It's been replace, the only problem is that many users are slow to realize this. BC> That one is the biggie, of course. Otherwise....I dunno. As a BC> communications engineer and a communications provider, I BC> don't physically and tangibly see the exact picture you BC> painted above. I don't know WHY. I just know that the USR BC> v.everything modems have the highest percentage of BC> connectability at my BBS and at certain others. I know BC> that Hayes 288's are pretty great for Users, i.e., outbound BC> calls; and that ZOOM, Supra, Boca, are bit players with BC> various problems of their own. The Cardinal is looking BC> good, but I don't have enough data yet. The ZyXEL Elite Well the Zoom, Cardinal and Boca are all Rockwell Glue 'n Go jobbies with virtualy no modification to their code, so on the inside they're all pretty mcuh the same. Supra is a Rockwell Glue 'n Go modem but they actualy DID make modifcation to their code. But you're forgeting some fairly major players, such as Motorola and Multitech, neither of whom support vFC BTW. BC> 2864 is shaping up to be a contender, but it's still in BC> beta and conclusions cannot be drawn yet. Well, the Zyxel is out of beta, but still way to early to tell anything about it's performance. One thing's for sure though, it sure has a ton of features. I'd be interesting in one if they do end up having a good v.34 implemetnation.. For now though, i think I'll go mail my money order for a Motorola Power :>. Anthony Hill an171@freenet.carleton.ca -- SPEED 1.40 [NR]: Evaluation day 5701... --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: BBSTerm - Linking BBSes Everywhere (613) 825-2932 (1:163/416) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCJ00015 Date: 08/12/95 From: ANTHONY HILL Time: 03:08am \/To: ROELAND JANSEN (Read 3 times) Subj: 32,000 connect speed > Does ZyXEL have a Flash Rom upgrade to connect the new > modems to make a 32,000 speed negotiation like the U.S.Robotics RJ> RJ> 31k2 and 33k6 ? if these are standard, it will probably be RJ> implemented. at this moment v34bis isn't standard yet, I RJ> believe. However, the hardware is easily capable of doing RJ> it so, wait and see. FWIW, no the 31.2 and 33.6kbps speeds of v.34 are not currently in the ITU-T recommendation for v.34, however Study Group 14 is working on an annex to v.34 which will (amonst other things) push the top speed of v.34 up to 33.6kbps. The companies that have alrady implemented 33.6kbps v.34 (or v.34+, or v.34terbo, or whatever) are doing so in the same general way as the SG14 has planned on doing 33.6kbps (which isn't too suprising, since all the companies I know of currenlty running at 33.6kbps have some part in SG14). Anyway, to get back on to the topic of the Zyxel, first I've heard that the Zyxel 2864s did not support the optional 3429 symbol rate of v.34, can anyone confirm/deny this? If they don't, they'll need to add that before they'll ever run at 33.6 (or even 31.2 unless I miss my guess). Anthony Hill an171@freenet.carleton.ca -- SPEED 1.40 [NR]: Evaluation day 5703... --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: BBSTerm - Linking BBSes Everywhere (613) 825-2932 (1:163/416) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCJ00016 Date: 08/13/95 From: ERIC WAMPNER Time: 02:18pm \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: e2864 --> isdn From: eww@grebble.oau.org (Eric Wampner) Newsgroups: zyxel Organization: Funny Uncle Lenny Brand Inc. Mike Harris (Mike.Harris%103-132@animece.oau.org) wrote: : RJ|XYou need the following equipment to operate your Elite 2864I ISDN odem: : RJ|XX Computer or terminal with communication software. : RJ|XX An ISDN Basic Rate Interface (S0) from your telephone company. : I was told by my local US West ISDN phone representative that I : would need some "black box" costing about $500 to go between the : phone line and the modem. Was he incorrect? Yes. a BRI interface is basically "ISDN telephone service". He is probably talking about a ISDN-POTS converter, which would allow you to use a regular modem on an ISDN line, or an equivalent of the ZyXEL (ISDN modem), neither of which is needed. There can be an adapter for certain things, but its probably less than $100US. Phone reps vary in quality, in my experience (limited) there are one or two key people who know what the hell they are doing, and the rest either BS or pass the buck. eric -- --- Eric Wampner eww@grebble.oau.org "Valkyrie..." eww@crc.com SNAIL 2618 Adela,32826-3253 ***G'Kar: "Weep for the chicken, Na'Toth. Weep for us all"*** --- * Origin: grebble UUCP (1:363/137.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCJ00017 Date: 08/14/95 From: ARTHUR LIN Time: 10:58am \/To: SHANE BRO (Read 3 times) Subj: ZyXEL problems Shane, What's your setting? I have no problem to connect 19.2K with other U-1496E+. Arthur...:) --- Maximus/2 2.01wb * Origin: Sound Stage BBS - Live Via Satellite - (604)944-6476 (1:153/7070) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCJ00018 Date: 08/14/95 From: DAVID POON Time: 10:13pm \/To: SHANE BRO (Read 3 times) Subj: ZyXEL problems Shane Bro wrote in a message to All: SB> I've got a ZyXEl U-1496E PLUS and I can't connect at SB> 19.2. I did get a bunch of replies the first time I ask (I SB> did try all of them out and nothing worked). It won't SB> connect locally or LD (talking with ZyXEl support from the SB> states). SB> Another problem I am now encountering is the modem SB> won't pick up when someone calls (the modem is not set to SB> auto answer). The AA light SHOULD flash. I have the modem SB> to ring softly but the AA light does not flash and the modem SB> does not pick up (since my computer does not know when the SB> phone is ringing). SB> I've tried to have the modem reset ever couple of SB> mins, but that does not seem to work either. When the modem SB> is warm it seems not to answer. It is in a well ventalated SB> area - it does not get as warm as my USR 28.8 V.Everything. SB> Can some one help me out on this little problem? SB> BTW, ZyXEL support did not know what to do about this little SB> problem either. SB> __ SB> / SB> These two nuns go into a bar... SB> \__ Have you tried a hardware reset by pressing the Data/Voice switch until the modem squeals and spew out the characters.. Try that.. Then, adjust the settings that you need to make the modem work.. And set AT&N0 and not AT&N17. This will force you to connect at 14.4k V.32bis... Cheers! -=Team OS/2 Member=- [InterNet] USR Sportster V34 <-> Miramax GATEWAY =- [ N1: Courier 33.6K+ / N2: ZyXEL 2864 28.8K / N3: Telebit WorldBlazer 23.0K] --- FastEcho/2+RA+BINK+Squish+GIGO * Origin: .\\iramax BBS * Vancouver, Canada * 28.8K V34/ZyXEL (1:153/7091) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCK00000 Date: 08/15/95 From: DOUG PALMER Time: 06:24pm \/To: ANTHONY HILL (Read 3 times) Subj: 32,000 connect speed AH> back on to the topic of the Zyxel, first I've heard that the Zyxel AH> 2864s did not support the optional 3429 symbol rate of v.34, can AH> anyone confirm/deny this? If they don't, they'll need to add that AH> before they'll ever run at 33.6 (or even 31.2 unless I miss my guess). I do not know about the 3429 symbol rate (my phone lines will not support it), but 31.2 is very possible with the 3200 symbol rate. It is quite common here. Doug --- Maximus/2 3.00 * Origin: The Rock BBS -- ZyXEL Elite 2864 v.34 (1:387/31) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCK00001 Date: 08/14/95 From: STEPHEN HENDRICKS Time: 01:33pm \/To: TJIPKE DE VRIES (Read 3 times) Subj: Busy Detection Replying to a message of Tjipke de Vries to rolf@xs4all.nl: TdV> Hello rolf@xs4all.nl! TdV> On 07 Aug 95 19:15, rolf@xs4all.nl (2:280/865@news.xs4all.nl) TdV> wrote to All: r>> Hmm... I thought the Elite would support all ITU-T standards.. so r>> why not terbo. Idiots... TdV> V32Terbo is no ITU-T standard, it's an AT&T defacto standard. Neither is VFC. But Terbo, unlike VFC is being added to NEW modems on a constant basis. Terbo is merely the logical extension of V.32, much as Zyx was. Only there are 130+ makers supporting Terbo now, and still only one supporting Zyx. --- FleetStreet 1.04.2 NR * Origin: Island On Line - V.34+ Warp Speed 33600 (1:3630/90) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCK00002 Date: 08/14/95 From: STEPHEN HENDRICKS Time: 01:35pm \/To: JON FLETCHER (Read 3 times) Subj: ROM upgrade to 28.8K of 1496E+ Replying to a message of Jay Hanig to Jon Fletcher: JF>> I don't see what the deal is... V.FC is being phased out by USR, That is not true. All USR modems that support V.34 also support VFC. JF>> and they have a Rom chip you can replace your old V.FC chip JF>> with the new V.34 version. So V.FC is disappearing anyway. JF>> What's the point? VFC was not replaced by V.34. V.34 was added and VFC was retained. JF>> It's like asking "Why doesn't ZyXel support the HST Protocol?" JF>> It's HISTORY! That remains a current question actually. Zyxel told me they didn't support HST ONLY because they thought the license fees were too high. But they weren't so high that ten other modem makers DID license HST when HST was the DOMINANT high speed protocol. HST has been superceded, but still remains in demand for many users. But Terbo is widely supported by many makers, increasing all the time. And VFC is present in probably 90% of V.34 modems. If Rockwell did sell 1 million VFC chipsets, and there were that many modems made, if the cost isn't too high then it is worth supporting the protocol. Why do 90% of V.34 makers support VFC if this is not the case? JF>> Why not call USR up ans ask them why they don't JF>> support the ZyXel-16800 and ZyXel-19200 modes? Call any modem maker. USR supports V.32Terbo, which is a widely used 16800 and 19200 (and 21600 on USR Courier modems) protocol. Zyxel was NEVER adopted by anyone. The reason may be it was never taken seriously.. but it is just as likely that it was victim to the "not invented here" syndrome. From official word I got from USR.. they never felt Zyx protocols were available in enough modems to make it justified to spend the money on implimenting, even if FREE. Since USR IS an AT&T client, and AT&Ts Terbo is similar, it could be seen that adopting Terbo and not Zyx is in their (USRs) best interests. JH> VFC is not a proprietary protocol. Several manufacturers used it JH> while they were waiting for v.34 to be ratified. No.. VFC is proprietary just as V.32Terbo, MNP5, V.42bis and parts of V.34 are. JF>> If you like, call the USRobotics fax-back number at JF>> 1-800-762-6163 and request document #620. It contains the JF>> instructions on how to upgrade your V.FC to V.34. That is pretty old now. While some older USR modems have not been upgraded, it is primarily the old out of production Whitney Houston models. Those could cost from $99 to $199 to upgrade to current V.34+ levels. --- FleetStreet 1.04.2 NR * Origin: Island On Line - V.34+ Warp Speed 33600 (1:3630/90) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCK00003 Date: 08/14/95 From: STEPHEN HENDRICKS Time: 01:42pm \/To: JERRY SCHWARTZ (Read 3 times) Subj: ROM upgrade to 28.8K of 1496E+ Replying to a message of Jerry Schwartz to Jay Hanig: JS> On Aug 03 18:23 95, Jay Hanig of 1:379/41.5 wrote to Jon JS> Fletcher: JH>> VFC is not a proprietary protocol. Several manufacturers used JH>> it while they were waiting for v.34 to be ratified. JS> It sure was proprietary; in order to use it, you had to buy a JS> chipset from Rockwell or license it from them. That is not the JS> case with V.34, which is essentially public property. Most of V.34 is public domain. But MANY of the optional protocols within ARE proprietary, such as V.42bis, MNP5 and other options. --- FleetStreet 1.04.2 NR * Origin: Island On Line - V.34+ Warp Speed 33600 (1:3630/90) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 116 ZYXEL MODEMS Ref: CCK00004 Date: 08/14/95 From: STYX ALLUM Time: 12:45pm \/To: KEITH HUNTINGTON (Read 3 times) Subj: ROM upgrade to 28.8K of 1496E+ > Several companies licensed the code from USR, but I assure > you that USR will be first to tell you that HST is quite > proprietary, thankyouverymuch. Wow. Have you verified this? I know of no other modem manufacturers utilizing USR's proprietary HST protocol. I still have a few HST modems laying around, so it would be nice to know whether or not there are any non-USRs out there that they could communicate with via HST. Meanwhile, I'll stick with ZyXEL until/unless something better comes along. It would sure be neat, however, if ZyXEL could (would) license HST protocol for their line. (Albeit a case of too little, too late...) :-\ It would be indeed ironic if ZyXEL were able to revive outdated HST modems by licensing that protocol. There are still a lot of otherwise useful HST modems sitting on shelves throughout FidoLand. --- * Origin: Out in the Styx - Eugene OR ZyXEL 16.8/V.32b/FAX (1:152/20)