Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

v.92 Support in Linux?

Posted by Cliff on from the keeping-it-alive dept.

cswiii asks: "Recently I was in the market to buy another modem. I'd not done this is a few years, and so there were a few new improvements about which I had to learn. One of those things was v.92, which, among other things, allows the user to keep the connection alive, should s/he get another call. This requires software on the user's part; my Sportster came with Windows software. However, a cursory check on Freshmeat for 'v.92' returns nothing. Is there any Linux development currently going on to support v.92?"

13 comments

  1. And google sez... by gmaestro · · Score: 2

    These guys say that their v.92 modem is linux "compatible."

    It also seems Zoom supports v.92 under linux. Here's a news release, I guess they've supported linux v.92 since January this year.

    1. Re:And google sez... by cswiii · · Score: 2

      Oh, linux handles my v.92 modem just fine. But as far as I know, there is no linux software, as there is for Win32, that will give you the pop-up window stating that there is another call coming through, etc. I have not yet seen any linux apps that take advantage of this portion of the protocol, as I have seen for Windows and/or Mac.

  2. Another question to ask is: by Blob+Pet · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does your ISP support v.92? Last I heard, some ISPs weren't even going to support the new protocol because there wasn't a lot of demand for it and OEMs aren't putting the new modems in their machines. Here's an article on this issue.

    --
    "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    1. Re:Another question to ask is: by LordEq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does your ISP support v.92? Last I heard, some ISPs weren't even going to support the new protocol because there wasn't a lot of demand for it and OEMs aren't putting the new modems in their machines.

      If all the high-speed options for Internet fade in popularity as many predict, the suspend-and-keep-alive feature will become highly desirable. If people can't afford broadband, they can't afford an extra phone line just for 'net access.

      Hopefully, it won't come to that. They'll have to pry my cable modem from my cold, lifeless fingers.

    2. Re:Another question to ask is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They'll have to pry my cable modem from my cold, lifeless fingers.

      Somehow I picture a cartoon of a skeleton with the caption "Cable connection running slow?"

    3. Re:Another question to ask is: by fwc · · Score: 2
      There's another reason why ISP's aren't going to support this: Cost.

      Most of the dial equipment in place is near it's end of life. Lots of smaller ISP's use PM3's which won't have a v.92 upgrade available. Not sure about the PM4's. Upgrading these units to v.92 would cost the ISP thousands of dollars with very little hope of ever seeing any return on investment.

      In addition, the Ascend (lucent) MAX gear and the 3com/USR Total Control units aren't upgradeable unless the ISP carries a service contract on the gear. A LOT of ISP's have dropped the service contracts on their dialup equipment as the existing software is stable, the phone support sucks (most ISP techs know more about the equipment than the manufacturer techs do), and it is a lot cheaper just to buy used spares for everything, thus minimizing downtime by being able to keep a hot spare on the shelf.

      Again, the added cost of adding maintenance to permit the addition of V.92 support to their dial pool has very little real liklihood of return on investment.

      I'd say don't worry about the v.92 stuff, and just get a robust hardware-based v.90 modem.

    4. Re:Another question to ask is: by tzanger · · Score: 2

      Does your ISP support v.92? Last I heard, some ISPs weren't even going to support the new protocol because there wasn't a lot of demand for it and OEMs aren't putting the new modems in their machines.

      As an ISP, we aren't supporting V.92 because it is detrimental to our user/line ratios. And as cut-rate as dialup is, people seem to be wanting price and availablility. Having to be booted off because a call comes in hardly comes in as a complaint, so we aren't supporting v.92.

  3. I wouldn't worry too much... by SuzanneA · · Score: 2, Insightful
    For the average modem user, V92 doesn't offer much. The only real benefit is the fast-connect, and that doesn't work all that often from what I've seen of the technical details.

    The 'faster uploads' is a misdirection if you're an average user, you have to sacrifice download speed to get the upload speed, so while you can have 50-56k uploads, it means going back to 33.6k downloads. There MAY be a reasonable compromise somewhere in between (there are several settings for Down:Up ratio), but it would take trial and error, and you'd probably spend a lot of time worrying about whether you could be getting a faster download.

    Also, as another poster mentioned, many ISPs don't support it yet. Back in July/August I flashed a V90 3com to V92, it was the worst move I made, the new firmware dropped my download rate from 50.6k every time, to

    Of course, any external V92 modem will work fine with linux, the differences are only a handful of +P prefix AT commands.

    1. Re:I wouldn't worry too much... by Dr.+Galazkiewicz · · Score: 1

      I can't help but to agree.

      I just bought a USR v.90 in a box that that said v.92, but it did have a yellow piece of paper saying I could flash it.

      I used it for a week (firmware said ?Jan 2001) and it was an improvement from my haynes accura (real early 33.6). Then ran the "total lack of control utility" and flashed upto ?March 2001 firmware. Don't get me started on how it has to be plugged in off-hook && online to update (try that when you only own one modem cable)

      It take like an 20 lllllloooonnngg trys to handshake...yea quick connect my ass.

      So I'm back to the old modem since I don't like to wait an hour dialing. Can't flash back, didn't offer to save old.

      It worked fine as ?Jan 2001 firmware under linux, yet blows under both nt & linux. If v.92/v.90 works fine for you, don't flash it!

    2. Re:I wouldn't worry too much... by Cow4263 · · Score: 1

      The 'faster uploads' is a misdirection if you're an average user, you have to sacrifice download speed to get the upload speed, so while you can have 50-56k uploads, it means going back to 33.6k downloads.

      Umm... what? The upload speed is increased to 48 Kbps, and download is still 56k (although the FCC cap is still at 53k). You wouldn't be able to download at 48 Kbps while downloading at 53 Kbps anyway (or 33.6 Kbps for that matter...) as it all uses the same pipe of 53 Kbps.

    3. Re:I wouldn't worry too much... by tzanger · · Score: 2

      I used it for a week (firmware said ?Jan 2001) and it was an improvement from my haynes accura (real early 33.6).

      Wow, haynes makes modems too? I was always fond of their undergarment products but I'm going to have to give their connectivity solutions a try too!

    4. Re:I wouldn't worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. The telephone system and V.9{0,2} are not half-duplex protocols. They can transmit in both directions at the same time. Old protocols like PEP were half-duplex, allowing transmission in one direction (but it switched dynamically). HST from USR was kinda half-duplex. The download channel was high speed while the upload channel was 300-450bps, depending on which direction carried more traffic.

      There's no reason why you can't upload 33.6Kbps and download 50Kbps at the same time, there's nothing in V.90 or 92 to prevent it (in fact, there's nothing in any recent protocol except those mentioned that prevents transmission in both directions simultaneously).