Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:34:24 -0800 (PST) From: Leonard Chua <lenc@earth.infinetconsulting.com> To: spork <spork@super-g.com> Cc: Alan Batie <batie@agora.rdrop.com>, drussell@internode.net, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 56K vs X2? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970123003050.24425A-100000@earth.infinetconsulting.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970122225510.18266B-100000@super-g.inch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, spork wrote: > Howdy, Howdy. > One thing to remember amongst all this M$ reminiscent hype is that ALL of > the 56K modems require a direct *digital* connection to the telco on one > end (the server) to function. It's in the fine print, but all the > standards require this. So if you're an ISP with a term server and > stand-alone modems, be prepared to throw it all away in favor of this new, > unproven technology. Has anyone yet to see a demo of this during a sales > pitch?? Now that is a very good point indeed. I think that throws the balance in favour of using T1 lines. :) Also, I'm probably wrong, but I recall hearing somewhere that there's 56K/X2 server and 56K/X2 client modems. Meaning that even the modem vendor says a particular modem is upgradeable to 56K/X2, it may not neccessarily work as a dialin 56K/X2 modem. Anyone care to dispute that. (I apologise in advance if I'm wrong. I'm pretty dead tired right now :) Cheers. Len
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970123003050.24425A-100000>