> Maybe there are some issues I am not considering or not aware of but here
> are my thoughts...
>
> It is utterly ridiculous that this arguement even exists. Why should
> Livingston spend time making their product downward compatible with a
> standard developed 10 years ago? I would rather that they spend time
> developing new products and supporting products which work with today's
> technology.
Me too, BUT I would apply this to not supporting < 2400 baud, for those
who don't want to or who don't *need to* buy a $100-$150 14.4k/28.8k they
can use 2400's. They work great.
> I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a proponent of 2400 baud
> support. The cost of a 14,400 modem (which WILL operate at 2400 baud if
> necessary) is $50 USD and Ive seen used ones for $30. So price should not
> be an issue. I just threw away about 20 external and internal 2400 baud
> modems because I had no use for them.
I'm sure someone could have used them.
> Then could it be a technical issue? One person mentioned something about
> cellular calls and that their average successful connection is 2400 baud.
> I don't think this accounts for much of the market. And for that small
> part of the market that needs cellular internet connection, they most
Well, a lot of users have setups that you need to support but don't
represent a large market - I'm not one to just ignore those people -
especially when their requirements are reasonsible.
> probably could afford better equipment or better service in order to
> achieve 9600 baud or better. I certainly would NOT put up with cellular
> internet connection at anything less.
>
> Okay now I will put myself in Livingston's shoes. They are market driven.
> They sell what the majority of the market wants. I dont think the majority
> of their market wants or needs 2400 baud support. I just dont see how that
> could be possible.
>
> On the other hand, if 2400 baud support is something that could easily be
> added, then they might as well do it. They must consider the costs of any
> software redesign and its implications. Sometimes fixing one problem
> causes another. I am sure they have considered this.
Indeed. I don't think it was too hard to add the 2400baud support.. at
least compared to the newest 28.8k fads.
> My personal feeling is as long as there are people that say that they must
> have 2400 baud support, the market is holding itself back! I say we should
> forget anything below 14400 and look to the future, which by the way,
> should logically move away from using analog technology to digital. Modems
> have always been a backwards way to connect networks together. They
> take digital signals, modulate them to analog sounds in the range of 3 to
> 3.3khz so that the phone co equipment can carry it on equipment intended
> for voice, then demodulate it on the other end back into digital data.
> This is silly to do when one considers that the phone co CO's connect via
> digital lines.
This is like someone saying "Macs are lame, and since most of my users
don't use Macs I won't support them at all! They should use real
computers and upgrade and shell out money for a new one.. Even if they
don't NEED the extra speed/whatever." IMO. Anything below 2400 is
definately not worth supporting though.
Aaah, now I feel it is the time to quit arguing about things that have
already been implemented, it took no more than a few days to do, and won't
hold back the newest latest 14.4k and up stuff.
* Also I find it important for the PM3's to support 2400 baud in my case
because a lot of my users buy new pentium computers but the store drops a
2400data/9600fax modem in it. We encourage them to upgrade and then
usually do but until they have time to upgrade and they just want to get
up and running it is nice to support 2400baud modems.
- Steve
- Systems Manager
- Community Internet Access, Inc.
- Gallup and Grants, New Mexico