Re: (PM) Re: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com]

Rich Gibbons (rkg@empirenet.com)
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:03:21 +0000

I never did find a reference to S202=32 in any of the
modem manuals, I picked it up in places like this list
and comp.dcom.modems.
I've got to say that I haven't had as much fun reading
a thread as this one since the pre-Net99/CIX thread
on inet-access. It seems to me however, that it's time
to cool down and hope that Mr. Rickard will see fit
to publish the complete Boardwatch test methodology.
Without such a disclosure the test results are suspect
at best. Especially since the results seem to contradict
data coming from ISP's with PM3's.

Regards,
Rich Gibbons
EmpireNet Inc.

> S202=32 is well known at the tech desks of most ISPs, including ours, and is
> recommended for *MOST* Rockwell firmware versions. It doesn't appear to
> hurt any of them, even where it does no apparent good.
>
> Of course, if you don't look in the FAQs, don't call tech support, and just
> "hit and run" instead of actually getting service from someone, how would
> you know?
>
> You wouldn't.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
> http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
> | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
> Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 1998 at 01:11:53PM -0700, Jack Rickard wrote:
> > So you deal with reports of difficulties from customers as they come in,
> > and there is no visibility between V.34 calls?
> >
> > S202=32 is news to me. This is supposed to be obvious to end users?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Dick St.Peters <stpeters@NetHeaven.com>
> > > To: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com>
> > > Cc: Robert Boyle <robert@garden.net>; portmaster-users@livingston.com
> > > Subject: Re: (PM) Re: [jack.rickard@boardwatch.com]
> > > Date: Sunday, February 22, 1998 11:58 AM
> > >
> > > Jack Rickard writes:
> > > > So how do you count calls made from a K56flex modem, to a K56flex port,
> > > > that result in a NON-PCM session - a V.34 session. In other words, how
> > to
> > > > you differentiate between V.34 sessions from V.34 modems, and V.34
> > sessions
> > > > from K56 modems that failed to establish a PCM session?
> > >
> > > We don't. We make PCM sessions work instead. We have found every
> > > case where flex PCM could not be made to work to be due to phone
> > > issues - with the obvious exception of cases still in progress that
> > > always exist with new users and new modems coming.
> > >
> > > Making flex PCM work is usually pretty simple. Most Rockwell modems
> > > need an "S202=32" in their init strings to talk to the Lucent flex
> > > modems in PM3s. We've had case after case of users who couldn't
> > > connect PCM until tech support (ours, Zoom's, Motorola's, whoever's)
> > > told the user this. For example,
> > >
> > > Complaint to support:
> > > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:45:31 -0500
> > >
> > > I was wondering why my connection to your service is so poor. The
> > best
> > > I can connect to your 223-0300 56flex line is 31200.
> > >
> > > Response from support:
> > > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:51:02 -0500
> > >
> > > and you'll have a place "Extra settings" to put in a modem init
> > > string. Try this one:
> > > &F&K3S202=32W2
> > >
> > > (We also asked him to try some of our other numbers.)
> > >
> > > Response back from user:
> > > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:48:38 -0500
> > >
> > > This truly is black magic. It seems to have solved my problem.
> > >
> > > 223-0300 48,48,50k
> > > 245-0300 48,50,48k
> > > 743-2620 46,46,48k
> > > 583-8150 50,52,50,52k tested extra, couldn't beleive the rate, I'm
> > almost tempted to keep using this one....
> > > 242-0300 48,52,50k
> > >
> > > That's just one example - an unusually well-documented one, but this
> > > happens time after time. Long time ago we used to have to do a lot of
> > > this kind of diddling for V.34 too - and for V.FAST before it.
> > >
> > > When a single vendor controls both ends and sets the defaults the
> > > same, you don't have implementation issues of this kind. You also
> > > don't have them once an interoperating critical mass has evolved for a
> > > standard.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dick St.Peters, stpeters@NetHeaven.com
> > > Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY, 1-800-910-6671 (voice)
> > > Saratoga/Albany/Amsterdam/BlueMountain/Cobleskill/Greenwich/
> > > GlensFalls/LakePlacid/NorthCreek/Plattsburgh/...
> > > First Internet service based in the 518 area code
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> > > 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> > > Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> > 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> > Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>