Here's a web page where you can find all kinds of neat INIT strings that
fix various modems that are "broken":
http://iav.com/~livingston/modeminit.html
I'm not sure if the USR Sportster fix is listed in there, but we've had
success with "ATS15.7=1".
Chad Scott | chad@txdirect.net
Systems Administrator | Voice 210-308-9800 x206
Internet Direct, Incorporated | FAX 210-308-9240
=========================================================
Finger chad@txdirect.net for PGP Public Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelley Lingerfelt [SMTP:pm2e@cococo.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 2:19 PM
To: Chad Scott
Cc: Scott Lagos; portmaster-users@livingston.com
Subject: Re: 56K Modems - Do I really want mine?
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Chad Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Scott Lagos wrote:
>
> > So with all these reported problems with the 56K modems, is anyone
willing
> > to say..."Keep'em Livingston......and send them to me when they work."?
>
> THIS IS *HALARIOUS*. All I can remember last month was, "SEND ME MY DAMN
> MODEMS!" Now I'm hearing, "KEEP YOUR DAMN MODEMS!"
>
It wasn't that *Hilarious* at the time he wrote the letter... About the
only reports that were coming in at the time, were not good at all.
> You've got people on one side saying ping times are down, connect rates
> are up, and generally the Lucent stuff is a better modem. On the other
> side, various Sportsters won't work (to which there is a workaround, I
> believe),
I hear there is one, but what is it? When will Livingston ever post some
of these workarounds or even acknowledge them?
> MWave's won't work (like they ever did in the first place), and
> WinModems have problems (which is essentially a USR MWave).
Check out this URL
http://www.livingston.com/Marketing/Products/56Krules.shtml
and read the list of client modems that are compatible with the PortMaster
3? Look what number 27 is?
Later
Kelley