IBM PS/2 Model 70 - blue lightning, so the 486 instead of the 386, with 8MB of ram and a 160MB ESDI harddrive. :) On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Gary Sparkes <mokuba at gmail.com> wrote: -- Gary G. Sparkes Jr. KB3HAG

~$50/mo unlimited all the things. On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Sean Caron <scaron at umich.edu> wrote: -- Gary G. Sparkes Jr. KB3HAG

VoIP lines *can* work for modems. I have done 33.6kbps connections on Vonage in the past. HST modems seem to work better than v.34/v.90/v.92 modems on VoIP though. Jim -----Original Message----- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Sean Caron Sent: February-08-15 5:44 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; Sean Caron Subject: Re: New BBS in Maryland Cool! Wish I could call but I haven't had a POTS line for years. I gather they're more expensive than they used to be ...? What do they charge you for just a POTS line these days?

It depends somewhat on the modem, but slower speeds work well in my experience. As long as there isn?t much packet loss, 110 and 300 bps ought to work quite well. Jim From: Mike Whalen [mailto:mikew at thecomputervalet.com] Sent: February-09-15 9:41 AM To: Jim MacKenzie; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: RE: New BBS in Maryland On February 9, 2015 at 9:39:02 AM, Jim MacKenzie (jim at photojim.ca <mailto:jim at photojim.ca> ) wrote: Sometime I?ve always been curious about (but not enough to try it myself yet) is how SLOW can the connections go? Could you establish a 300 baud connection? 110? Avoiding the question of WHY for them moment... Cheers, m On February 9, 2015 at 9:39:02 AM, Jim MacKenzie (jim at photojim.ca <mailto:jim at photojim.ca> ) wrote: VoIP lines *can* work for modems. I have done 33.6kbps connections on Vonage in the past. HST modems seem to work better than v.34/v.90/v.92 modems on VoIP though. Jim -----Original Message----- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Sean Caron Sent: February-08-15 5:44 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; Sean Caron Subject: Re: New BBS in Maryland Cool! Wish I could call but I haven't had a POTS line for years. I gather they're more expensive than they used to be ...? What do they charge you for just a POTS line these days?

It's all about latency and jitter. If you can keep the latency and jitter down... and consistent... modems will actually work pretty well over VoIP and you can sometimes pull off some fairly high data rates... If jitter on the link is very bad, good luck, even at 300 baud. Best, Sean On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Chris Osborn <fozztexx at fozztexx.com> wrote:

"It depends." At the really low data rates, like 110 or 300 bps (which =baud for those rates), there's no negotiation and it's all about consistent latency, which means low jitter. (Consistent high latency is better than inconsistent low latency, for this, so crank those jitterbuffer sizes up - jitter is really just small fast fluctuations in latency, and the line between jitter issues and latency issues is a fuzzy one.) At higher rates, it matters more. The usual 1200bps, for example, is 600 baud with two bits per baud and is like 110 and 300 in that there is no negotiation; this means that high but constant latency doesn't disturb it and turning the jitterbuffer up to what would normally be ridiculous levels can fix a lot. But it takes less to disturb 1200 than it does to disturb 300 or 110; bits are smaller, after all. A half-second of jitterbuffer delay is enough to pretty much wreck a voice call but all it will do to a 300 or 1200 modem call is introduce data latency (which may or may not matter, of course). At the rates involving ECC and negoation between the ends, it really depends on the codec. Most traditional modem codecs are designed to deal with the kinds of errors typically introduced by POTS. Errors typically introduced by VoI are very different and traditional modem codecs generally fall flat on their metaphorical faces when faced with them. Recently, modem codecs designed to deal with VoI-style errors have been designed, though I haven't seen them make it into the field except for the special case of faxes. I once did some experiments with faxes using traditional codecs and I found that, as long as you have absolutely zero packet loss and enough jitterbuffer to deal with latency variations, they work great, but I found even a single lost packet can take out several dozen lines of fax data. I don't know how sensitive traditional modem codecs are to high (but consistent) latency. My tests didn't involve that. So, if your QoS or traffic shaping operates to improve latency consistency without generating ploss, it is likely to help. If it introduces ploss, it is likely to hurt. (If it does neither, I find myself wondering what it _is_ doing. :-) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Necroing an old thread, but in case anyone's tried in the past two weeks .... Verizon admitted fault when I called support off the bat! (why didn't they fix it sooner....???) Been offline due to a failed CO connection. Oh well. Getting fixed now! On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Sean Caron <scaron at umich.edu> wrote: -- Gary G. Sparkes Jr. KB3HAG

Now you have us curious. ?So, what was on the extra track? --? Peter Cetinski On February 9, 2015 at 12:28:06 PM, Chris Osborn (fozztexx at fozztexx.com) wrote: On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Sean Caron <scaron at umich.edu> wrote: I?ve actually had a 300 baud modem connect to an audio track on a CD. A long time ago when I was working at Napa Valley College, a student brought in a CD (I have no idea what band or album) that had an extra track which was a 300 baud modem recorded on it and he wanted to know what it was. To connect it to the modem I just played the track loudly and held up the handset on a phone near the speaker. It worked because at 300 baud there?s no two-way negotiation between the modems at all. One of these days I?ll get around to trying the same thing but uploading it as a YouTube video to see if someone else can make it connect to their modem. -- Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com

On 02/08/2015 03:12 PM, Gary Sparkes wrote: Hmmm, given the number of people who no longer *have* a landline, how well does a modem work with cell connection? 56K? 28.8K? 19.2K?... --Chuck

On Feb 8, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote: I have had absolutely no luck at all getting a modem to work through a cell phone. Not even at 300 baud. No problem doing 33.6 over a VoIP connection, but modems just won?t work with a cell phone. Not by patching in through the headphone jack, not through an acoustic coupler, nothing. I have a standing challenge on the RetroBattlestations community (retrobattlestations.com) that if someone can demonstrate getting a modem to work through a cell phone I?ll send them an entire set of retro stickers. http://imgur.com/a/iAS5T -- Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=9805C9C8F4699B!112200&authkey=!AD… The setup. ;) Two ram sticks modified by soldering iron to make the MPD lines compatable with this. it wants 2MB 80ns... 2MB 85ns modified seems to work ;) On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Gary Sparkes <mokuba at gmail.com> wrote: -- Gary G. Sparkes Jr. KB3HAG

On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Geoff Oltmans <oltmansg at gmail.com> wrote: Yes, I used to do that with my StarTac. The cell phone would respond to ATA commands and then use a modem at the telephone company to do the dialing. But using a cell phone *as* a modem doesn?t count towards the challenge of using a modem *through* a cell phone. ;-) -- Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com