TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-01 > 1073761671


From: Walt <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] OT: Modems
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:07:51 -0500
References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040110123222.03d13230@incoming.verizon.net><AJEHLOMPAIPACPKGLOJJMEHPFIAA.bruce.evans@sympatico.ca>
In-Reply-To: <AJEHLOMPAIPACPKGLOJJMEHPFIAA.bruce.evans@sympatico.ca>


At 01:33 PM 10/01/2004, Bruce Evans wrote:
>I doubt a modem from the early 80's would be ATI. They were still making
>their name in video then. Probably was U.S. Robotics or Hayes. Also, wasn't
>110 used primarily for teletype machines? Technically, that would be a modem
>but not in the sense we're used to.


Bruce

Yes, 110 baud modems were used in teletype machines and in terminals, and
yes they were modems in every sense of the word as we are used to them.
They were available in internal, external and rack mount versions. Bell
tried to keep a monopoly on modems by refusing to allow non Bell modems to
legally attach to Bell lines (and virtually all lines were Bell lines in
those days). Then Carter Phone (I think that's right, perhaps one word?)
sued for the right to attach their modems to Bell lines.

I remember Bell in 1972 trying the old IBM tactic FUD (fear, uncertainty,
and ?) on me. When I was talking to them and another manufacturer about
getting rack mount modems for the Honeywell mainframe, they carefully
pointed out to me that if we were using their lines and someone else's
modems and had a problem that it was difficult to tell who was responsible,
if we used Bell modems then all we had to do was call them and they would
take care of it.

They wanted too much for their modems. We didn't use them and we were never
sorry.

Walt

This thread: