The illusive V.90 reddit / bbs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-16 22:45 Hi, this is slightly off-topic but I'm looking for some "old hands" that were using Bulletin Boards with modems. The Tl;Dr is I've been experiementing with some Cisco gear, to host both dial up internet and BBS style connections. It's mostly working but I have a couple of US Robotics Fax Modems that struggle to connect ( They fail during Train Up" ) unless I disable v.90. A couple of other US Robotics and a Rockwell based Modem are able to connect with v.90 without any issues. They don't get a full 56K but they're stable. Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this? Was it normal for some modems to struggle to connect with v.90? If you need more info feel free to ask, I didn't want to open with a wall of text that was 90% irrelevant. Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Patient-Tech · 2021-11-16 22:55 Ha! I was around with a 20 page document learning the dark art of AT commands trying to squeak out a few extra baud back in the V.fast days. What you’re trying to do may not be possible. If you’re going from a pots modem to a pots modem, the best you’ll do is 33.6. That’s the analog maximum. 56k was when one side had a carrier/ISP grade modem plugged into an ISDN line from the phone company and could do full digital PCM downstream. That was not available if I wanted to call my buddy the next block over, I was stuck at analog. Why your modem isn’t just navigating this and going with 33.6 is something interesting, but maybe not an issue anyway. See if your firmware is all up to date on your modems. A few years ago I believe I was able to get into the side of USR that looked like it was static from 1997 and could download some updates from there. If you are doing the full carrier grade thing at your house, that’s a little outside what I had access to, but check your firmware there and also wire connections. It may be that you’re too close to the endpoints and one side is getting overloaded with signal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-16 23:21 I've got an E1 (European flavoured T1) between the "phone line" and the modem so in theory it should do proper v.90 56K. IIRC the Rockwell gets something like ~44K so the audio path must be pretty good. I believe the firmware that works is slightly older than the one that doesn't but that might not be related. I found the older version but it doesn't "find" the modem (It doesn't give much detail), I think its checking the version. I've extracted the binary file from the .exe so I might try forcing it to flash, but I'm trying to exhaust other options before potentially bricking it. I do have some control over the gain so I'll give that a go. Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Galileo228 · 2021-11-16 23:56 Nothing to contribute substantively here but as a former BBSer back in the day (with a USR modem) all of these terms are giving me the feels. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- bwann · 2021-11-17 00:19 Yes, compatibility was such a problem that when I ran an ISP I had to run two types of dial-up gear, USR and Portmaster 3s. Some modems out there just wouldn't connect to the PM3 but would connect just fine to the USR and vice versa. Software-based modems were terrible when they came out, particularly the Rockwell HCF-based ones. We were constantly having to track down the latest firmware for these and ship them to customers and walk them through over the phone how to update them (this was pure hell). The Lucent LT winmodems were decent once they got the latest code. Changing firmware had a huge impact on performance and stability. One thing we did in a pinch for some customers was set init strings so they'd only connect at say 45k. Otherwise the modem would spend a ton of time trying to re-train/re-negotiate up to 56k and fail and start over again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-17 00:26 Thanks for the info its really helpful. I was about 14 when we got Dial Up so beyond connecting and logging into MSN I didn't think about the technical side. > One thing we did in a pinch for some customers was set init strings so they'd only connect at say 45k. Otherwise the modem would spend a ton of time trying to re-train/re-negotiate up to 56k and fail and start over again. This is essentially whats happening, training fails and it hangs up. I'll try forcing slower speeds and see if I have any luck. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Patient-Tech · 2021-11-17 01:13 Kind of surprised at all the effort you’re putting into this. I’ve purposely slowed my connections down to get a feel for like it used to be. When I can refresh the screen in a blink of an eye when over 14.4, it feels just like if I telnet over my lan. Keep us posted if you figure it out though, I keep bouncing between 300 and 9600 baud for ultimate retro experience. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-17 02:00 I think it's good to preserve these things and Dial Up is at a place where it's fairly cheap and easy to put something together. I can confirm it's sloooow though, especially with modern websites which are bloated with JavaScript and huge images. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- flecom · 2021-11-17 08:07 I still use a pair of portmasters... to prop up my dual monitors on my desk hehe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-17 13:40 I've got it working, I had to set `compand-type a-law` on the voice- ports and now everythings doing v.90 at around 50K. It should be done automatically but I'm guessing its a cisco bug. Thanks for your help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-17 13:40 I've got it working, I had to set `compand-type a-law` on the voice- ports and now everythings doing v.90 at around 50K. It should be done automatically but I'm guessing its a cisco bug. Thanks for your help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PhotoJim99 · 2021-11-17 15:54 *elusive :) Reading this with interest. Nothing to add, but always wanted to have incoming v.90/v.92 connections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PhotoJim99 · 2021-11-17 15:56 Can you do a fuller post sometime on what you did? I'd love to get a v.90 or (better) v.92 dialup console on a Linux box one day. Easy to add SLIP/PPP dial-up Internet access to a console account too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YeezysMum · 2021-11-17 18:06 I will in the next few days, a couple of people have asked. I just wanted to get it working reliably before writing it up. I have a couple of other modems to test but I think I've solved it now, then I'll start the write up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PhotoJim99 · 2021-11-17 19:26 If you'd like some tests, let me know. I have a few modems that I could hook up for test calls (though might need until Saturday to hook some of them up). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- bwann · 2021-11-18 02:37 When I started ISPing I had so many customers with a 2400 bps modem that came with whatever Packard Bell they had. "How bad could it be, I don't want to buy a new one" "It worked with Prodigy!" then proceed to sit there for 15 minutes to show them how long it takes a simple gif to download from a website. Or they bought some new 14.4/28.8/33.6k external modem and hooked it up to their PC and the serial port only had a 8250 UART so it overran the port like crazy, making it slow. Latency was very much a thing too, not only do you have a low bps rate, but the latency across dial is easily at least 100-120ms from the data/audio/data conversion just to the RAS.