(PMOD) Re: (PM) Modem Manufacturer's/Lucent conformity....
Craig Baird (bairdc@xpressweb.com)
Thu, 20 May 1999 18:54:06 -0600
They're actually trying. During the last beta, I happen to know that
Lucent tried like mad to contact several modem chipset manufacturers in
an effort to pursuade them to get a clue. Cirrus Logic is the main one
that comes to my mind. I don't know if they ever did get hold of anyone
at Cirrus Logic with a half an idea what was going on. I think the
biggest problem is that there are all these cheap modem chipsets out
there with cheap modem code being slapped on cheap modems by cheap modem
manufacturers. Most of these cheap chipset manufacturers seldom release
new code revisions for their modems (or in the case of the HCF, they
release new code all the time, but never get it right). When they do
release new code, it takes the modem manufacturers months to actually
put out updates containing the new code. Take the afore-mentioned
Cirrus Logic modems for example. In the last few days I've responded to
several posts on the list from people who have these pieces of junk.
None of them have been running latest client modem code. How much ya
wanna bet that the manufacturer of those modems doesn't even have the
newer code available? Heck, look at all the HCF manufacturers that
still have firmware like 2.1.2.110 posted on their websites, when there
is a 2.1.2.156 available! In addition, look at how these modem
manufacturers switch chipsets! What was once a Lucent LT based modem
will be a Rockwell HCF tomorrow (a la Compaq). Then there are the
manufacturers that have a modem with every chipset under the sun!
Jaton, I know has modems with Cirrus Logic, PCTel, and TI chipsets.
Then, on top of all that, you've got the problem that now half these
cheap modem chipset manufacturers have decided to jump ship on the modem
business (they probably figured out that their modem code sucks, and
they don't want to put any effort into fixing it). If they're not
jumping ship, they're spinning their modem stuff off into separate
divisions. Rockwell modems are now Conexant, Cirrus Logic is now
Ambient, I heard Motorola was getting entirely out of the modem
business.
I think all this combines to put Lucent and the other NAS manufacturers
in a very difficult position. I agree that it's not right for Lucent to
have to conform to all these pieces of crap, but unfortunately it seems
they have to. After all, it's become painfully obvious that the client
modem manufacturers don't give a hoot about their code and the problems
it causes.
In our case, I'm doing everything I can to try to educate my users that
cheap, low quality modems usually give cheap, low quality performance.
My biggest obstacle is the fact that all the big-name computer
manufacturers are now putting these pieces of crap in their computers.
It's relatively easy to tell someone that the $30 HCF modem they just
bought is junk, but it's a bit more difficult to tell them that the HCF
modem in their new $1000 Compaq is junk. I mean... "Everyone knows that
Compaq makes good computers..." Yeah, right--so does Dell (USR
Winmodem), Gateway (Telepath USR winmodem), and Hewlett Packard
(Rockwell HCF). I never recommend name-brand computers to customers
anymore. I always recommend that they buy a no-name clone PC from a
local computer store with a non-winmodem USR Sportster (or a TI chipset
sportster clone) or a Zoom with a Lucent chipset. Guess what? I hardly
ever get complaints about modem problems from those users! <Sigh> Such
is the life of an ISP...
I think Lucent did great with 3.8.2c2, however! Even the junk modems
work pretty well now! I got a 5.18 kbps download last night on a 10 meg
file with a Jaton Cirrus Logic based modem!
Craig
Xpressweb Internet Services
bairdc@xpressweb.com
http://www.xpressweb.com
>
> 3 cheers for you, What is WRONG with a ras mfg like Lucent putting a little
> pressure on the makers of these cheap-ass client side modem to conform to at
> least a few standards. I, for one am tired of having my equipment which cost
> thousands conform to $20 modems.
>
> ...Charlie...
>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-modems' in the body of the message.