Virtual Modem for VoIP

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Does anyone know of a virtual modem that uses the sound card for VoIP
applications?
39 answers Last reply
More about virtual modem voip
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Yes there are many software aps for voip.
    Xten and SJLabs are the most popular (IMO) I prefer the SJ product for
    ease of configuration and sound quality.
    Both of these products are used by the major providers and supplied free.
    (usually)

    Another good ap is from Glophone.

    Yahoo Messenger is voice and voip capable with good sound quality.

    You will need to purchase minutes for full "anyphone" use, but most programs
    are free peer-to-peer.

    Pepperoni
    http://sjlabs.com/sjp.html
    http://www.glophone.com/plans

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:1110517492.629009.14240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Does anyone know of a virtual modem that uses the sound card for VoIP
    > applications?
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    "Pepperoni" <wastebasketbot@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:39cqfpF60i6uhU1@individual.net...
    > Yes there are many software aps for voip.
    > Xten and SJLabs are the most popular (IMO) I prefer the SJ product for
    > ease of configuration and sound quality.

    Is there a simple way to create new profiles for the SJ ? From what I can
    see, the only choice appears to be to download canned profiles for various
    providers, without the ability to change e.g. registrar or outboud proxy.
    The Xten models, on the othe hand, are fully configurable.

    Enzo
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    "Enzo Michelangeli" <nospam@em.no-ip.com> wrote in message
    news:42315a2b$1@newsgate.hknet.com...
    >
    > Is there a simple way to create new profiles for the SJ ? From what I can
    > see, the only choice appears to be to download canned profiles for various
    > providers, without the ability to change e.g. registrar or outboud proxy.
    > The Xten models, on the othe hand, are fully configurable.
    >
    > Enzo
    >

    Check the user manual.
    http://www.sjlabs.com/support.html

    I used a profile with no problem. The XTen, on the other hand, had a bug
    that refused to accept the password, and I had to manually configure between
    the password prompt popping up repeatedly.

    I *do* know that the SJ will hold multiple profiles. not sure how I did
    that. (it's been a while.)
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    I think you're missing my point. The idea is to use existing VoIP
    systems in a different way. For instance, back in the day, IBM had
    these MWave modems that were a general purpose DSP chip that doubled as
    a sound card and a modem. I was hoping someone knew of an application
    that would take my soundcard and do the same thing over VoIP. Hence
    eliminating the need to route a modem through an ATA just to go back
    over the wire. Within the guts of the machine so to speak.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    donfanning@msn.com wrote in message news:<1110621010.613347.153590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
    > I think you're missing my point. The idea is to use existing VoIP
    > systems in a different way. For instance, back in the day, IBM had
    > these MWave modems that were a general purpose DSP chip that doubled as
    > a sound card and a modem. I was hoping someone knew of an application
    > that would take my soundcard and do the same thing over VoIP. Hence
    > eliminating the need to route a modem through an ATA just to go back
    > over the wire. Within the guts of the machine so to speak.

    Perhaps it might help if you say what you want to achieve.

    Are you wanting a system of making dialup modem calls using voip lines?
    I think this is what you are after but you dont seem too clear.
    There are loads of virtual modems and com redirectors avalible
    whether one will do what you want I dont know.

    Ian
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    donfanning@msn.com wrote:
    > I think you're missing my point. The idea is to use existing VoIP
    > systems in a different way. For instance, back in the day, IBM had
    > these MWave modems that were a general purpose DSP chip that doubled as
    > a sound card and a modem. I was hoping someone knew of an application
    > that would take my soundcard and do the same thing over VoIP. Hence
    > eliminating the need to route a modem through an ATA just to go back
    > over the wire. Within the guts of the machine so to speak.
    >

    You do not make sense because a "modem" is a modulator-demodulator and
    an ATA is a modem too!
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote:
    > I think you're missing my point. The idea is to use existing VoIP
    > systems in a different way. For instance, back in the day, IBM had
    > these MWave modems that were a general purpose DSP chip that doubled as
    > a sound card and a modem. I was hoping someone knew of an application
    > that would take my soundcard and do the same thing over VoIP. Hence
    > eliminating the need to route a modem through an ATA just to go back
    > over the wire. Within the guts of the machine so to speak.

    I for one am having a really hard time grasping what it is exactly that
    you're trying to achieve. Maybe you could lay it out in really simple terms?

    Who are you trying to communicate with?

    What hardware do you want to use?

    What hardware do you refuse to use?

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    That doesn't make sense. Voip works by encoding audio into IP packets,
    sending it over the wire and decoding it back into audio. Any sound card in
    a PC can be used by software Voip phone software. It's the getting onto an
    IP network that requires ethernet and no DSP 'cards' will do this (and why
    should they considering how cheap an ethernet chipset is these days). If
    you want to use a laptop that has no ethernet connection and use a dial-up
    modem you can. It'll be slow as all get-out and the sound quality will
    suffer. A software Voip phone listening via the sound portion of the Mwave
    chip and then dialed out via the modem would work, albeit at pretty poor
    sound quality levels due to the slow transmission speeds of the modem.

    In most situations you don't use a modem into an ATA. You use the
    computer's own ethernet connection to make the call. If you've got an ATA
    working then you already have ethernet and, well, it'd be silly to have a
    computer dial into it!

    Or you're asking the wrong question based on wrong assumptions.


    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:1110621010.613347.153590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    > I think you're missing my point. The idea is to use existing VoIP
    > systems in a different way. For instance, back in the day, IBM had
    > these MWave modems that were a general purpose DSP chip that doubled as
    > a sound card and a modem. I was hoping someone knew of an application
    > that would take my soundcard and do the same thing over VoIP. Hence
    > eliminating the need to route a modem through an ATA just to go back
    > over the wire. Within the guts of the machine so to speak.
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:1110621010.613347.153590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    > I think you're missing my point. The idea is to use existing VoIP
    > systems in a different way. For instance, back in the day, IBM had
    > these MWave modems that were a general purpose DSP chip that doubled as
    > a sound card and a modem. I was hoping someone knew of an application
    > that would take my soundcard and do the same thing over VoIP. Hence
    > eliminating the need to route a modem through an ATA just to go back
    > over the wire. Within the guts of the machine so to speak.

    If you are looking for an FXO interface, able to drive an analog telephone
    line, sense ringing signals, dial DTMF tones and send/receive digitized
    voice, most so-called "Winmodems" have the necessary hardware. For two
    models, one based on the Motorola SM56 chipset and one on the Intel 537
    (a.k.a. Ambient MD3200) plus TigerJet PCI interface, Digium provides
    software drivers for Asterisk and for a while was reselling them rebranded
    as, respectively, X100P and X101P. See e.g. the thread at:

    http://yabb.pulver.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=HW-phone;action=display;num=1078366537;start=1#1

    For other models of Winmodems you are on your own; I suspect that it
    wouldn't be that difficult to modify the Digium drivers having sufficient
    hardware documentation.

    Enzo
  10. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    I want to communicate to another BBS or FAX system over VoIP without
    relying on an ATA. This should be possible with a soundcard or a DSP
    which a soundcard is anyways.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    The virtual modems out there are for translating COM/Serial
    communications to IP traffic. Not VoIP traffic because it needs to
    refeed over the POTS network. I know exactly what I'm looking for and
    there is nothing on google like this.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    You're missing the point entirely.

    Speaking purely in hardware:
    The IBM Mwave is a general purpose DSP for desktop and laptop
    computers.
    The system programs the DSP to either be a sound card or a modem but
    not both. The circuitry routes it appropriately to an Telephone
    Interface or Soundcard ports.

    No I'm not talking about using the ethernet card as a modem. Kinda
    pointless since it uses IP. What I'm talking about is using the
    soundcard to belch out the beeps and screeches that a modem
    communicates with into a VoIP channel and spit out on the far side's
    modem/fax through POTS connection on their end (not mine as I want the
    software to do it).

    And in your last case, your absolutely wrong. If you want to use a fax
    or modem, you at this time would connect it into the ATA and the call
    is routed over VoIP to the destination. That is NOT what a ethernet
    card is for.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Can't be a winmodem although it works on the same premise. A winmodem
    uses a GP DSP with telephone connections attached to the DSP. However,
    the problem is that the DSP only talks to the telephone interface, not
    the soundcard ergo does not work... unless you know of a way to reroute
    a modem back into a soundcard.

    I'm speaking entirely in software... like a voice changer but emulating
    DTMF and even 24/96 baud would suffice to start (slow but a start.)
  14. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    A modem modulates and demodulates digital signals to a telephone
    interface.
    An ATA converts telephone signals into a digital packet for IP
    traversal.
    Neither is the same. That is what the salesman tells you but not how
    it really works.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    An ATA is not a modem. It simply translate Telephone Line Signal to a
    digital packet for VoIP transmission.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote:
    > No I'm not talking about using the ethernet card as a modem. Kinda
    > pointless since it uses IP. What I'm talking about is using the
    > soundcard to belch out the beeps and screeches that a modem
    > communicates with into a VoIP channel and spit out on the far side's
    > modem/fax through POTS connection on their end (not mine as I want the
    > software to do it).

    There is not a lot of tolerance for erratic timing on the analog side of a
    modem connection. VoIP technology is really optimized around the particular
    flavors of tolerance that humans - and not modems - have for lossy
    transmission. You will be fighting an uphill battle. I'd be surprised if you
    could get this working at 9600bps.

    Why not instead just use the remote modem's native modemming powers and pipe
    the serial data over TCP/IP? It's easy, it's reliable, and there's lots of
    software for it.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand
  17. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    > You're missing the point entirely.

    If that's the case then it's only because of your descriptions of the
    situation.

    What's the fixation on the MWave and DSPs? While chips of it's nature have
    a range of features not all of them are worth bothering with. Especially
    given the incredibly low cost of ready-made VOIP devices.

    Just what is it you want to do? What source of audio and what destination?

    > And in your last case, your absolutely wrong. If you want to use a fax
    > or modem, you at this time would connect it into the ATA and the call
    > is routed over VoIP to the destination. That is NOT what a ethernet
    > card is for.

    You're mixing examples and I'm certainly correct in what I posted. It's
    apparent you're not effectively describing what you want to do. Given how
    you've described it thus far, however, it seems like a waste of time and
    effort.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Given how cheap ATA devices are it seems like a fools errand to bother.

    So, you're effectively talking about having a PC with a modem "call" into
    this device, route it through a VoIP circuit and then dial-out again at the
    remote end to connect to a remote BBS modem? Or, skipping the modem on the
    source end, let the PC use a remote FXO interface as an outbound dialing
    modem to the BBS. Sort of a tunnel for modem dialing? Isn't this what
    terminal servers are for? Using VoIP seems like it would add an unnecessary
    degree of complication to it.

    Besides, BBS and modems? How LAST century...

    (this from a guy who actually had and used 300 baud devices once upon a
    time...)

    -Bill Kearney


    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:1110795358.967361.95770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > I want to communicate to another BBS or FAX system over VoIP without
    > relying on an ATA. This should be possible with a soundcard or a DSP
    > which a soundcard is anyways.
    >
  19. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    > The virtual modems out there are for translating COM/Serial
    > communications to IP traffic. Not VoIP traffic because it needs to
    > refeed over the POTS network. I know exactly what I'm looking for and
    > there is nothing on google like this.

    There's nothing on google for all sorts of things. Sometimes because
    nobody's done it yet. Often because most know better than to bother wasting
    time on it.

    Shiva's old series of NetModem devices come to mind when I think about
    remote modem use. A client on the PC/Mac would tunnel through the local IP
    network to the NetModem and then dial-out.

    What problem, specifically, are you trying to solve? More and more it
    doesn't seem like VoIP has any use in this situation.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    donfanning@msn.com writes:

    >I want to communicate to another BBS or FAX system over VoIP without
    >relying on an ATA. This should be possible with a soundcard or a DSP
    >which a soundcard is anyways.

    You just want to use the soundcard for the DSP, right? That's because
    your host machine is not fast enough to run the CODEC or is there
    another issue? (You're not thinking of connecting anything to the
    sound card, are you?)

    --kyler
  21. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    donfanning@msn.com writes:

    >An ATA is not a modem. It simply translate Telephone Line Signal to a
    >digital packet for VoIP transmission.

    Yes, of course. A modem modulates and demodulates data between analog
    and digital representations and an ATA...uh...wait...tell me the
    difference again?

    --kyler
  22. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Kyler Laird wrote:

    > donfanning@msn.com writes:
    >
    >
    >>An ATA is not a modem. It simply translate Telephone Line Signal to a
    >>digital packet for VoIP transmission.
    >
    >
    > Yes, of course. A modem modulates and demodulates data between analog
    > and digital representations and an ATA...uh...wait...tell me the
    > difference again?
    >
    > --kyler

    I for one will not argue with the kook, ok?
  23. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    wkearney99 wrote:

    > Given how cheap ATA devices are it seems like a fools errand to bother.
    >
    > So, you're effectively talking about having a PC with a modem "call" into
    > this device, route it through a VoIP circuit and then dial-out again at the
    > remote end to connect to a remote BBS modem? Or, skipping the modem on the
    > source end, let the PC use a remote FXO interface as an outbound dialing
    > modem to the BBS. Sort of a tunnel for modem dialing? Isn't this what
    > terminal servers are for? Using VoIP seems like it would add an unnecessary
    > degree of complication to it.
    >
    > Besides, BBS and modems? How LAST century...
    >
    > (this from a guy who actually had and used 300 baud devices once upon a
    > time...)

    (I still have one that also does 110 baud...)
  24. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Rick Merrill wrote:
    > wkearney99 wrote:
    >
    >> Given how cheap ATA devices are it seems like a fools errand to
    >> bother. So, you're effectively talking about having a PC with a modem
    >> "call" into this device, route it through a VoIP circuit and then
    >> dial-out again at the remote end to connect to a remote BBS modem?
    >> Or, skipping the modem on the source end, let the PC use a remote
    >> FXO interface as an outbound dialing modem to the BBS. Sort of a
    >> tunnel for modem dialing? Isn't this what terminal servers are
    >> for? Using VoIP seems like it would add an unnecessary degree of
    >> complication to it. Besides, BBS and modems? How LAST century...
    >>
    >> (this from a guy who actually had and used 300 baud devices once
    >> upon a time...)
    >
    > (I still have one that also does 110 baud...)

    That's nothing, I used to have a Creed 444 on 50 baud RTTY :-)

    Ivor
  25. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    The DSP would be the source (or emulated modem).
    --through VoIP--
    Talking to a real modem on the destination.

    ---

    It's not LAST century when you consider how much of the world still
    isn't on broadband.
    Including all those myrad FAX machines, this would be something of a
    killer application.

    --

    This coming from a guy who RAN BBS's on those 300 baud devices once
    upon a time :)
  26. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    A Shiva netmodem would be great as an OUTDIAL device hooked to your PBX
    with a TELNET port into it.

    however...

    The problem is that I want to use a program to call out using my
    existing soundcard and say connect to a remote system. Be it a ISP
    indial, a VPN indial, a BBS indial, a FAX machine indial or even
    reverse it so that when someone calls my VoIP POTS number, it connects
    to my modem and provides modem/fax telephony without the hardware hit
    (meaning an ATA).

    ---

    Think of it this way... back in the day, hackers would be able to
    wardial systems via modem. With current technology you have to use an
    ATA to accomplish the same method. This just saves the trouble of an
    ATA. Better yet, think of a built-in FAX capability right into your
    VoIP without the need to subscribe to a IP-Based FAX network. Get my
    picture?
  27. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Tests have proven that VoIP can tolerate speeds up to 14.4 better than
    80%. Technically I don't require that speed. 2400 is more than
    sufficient.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    MWave and DSP's are the shortest route to the solution just because
    they were able to emulate the sounds and belches that a modem makes
    through software. A modern day SoundBlaster Audigy (or similar) has
    100x the DSP computing capability than that DSP had.
    ---
    There's no mixing examples. I give the MWave and DSP as an example of
    technology that has already been created however is currently not in
    production anymore. A more viable solution should be out there to
    solve this issue being MODEM/FAX telephony over VoIP without the use of
    an ATA which seems REDUNDANT if your soundcard is more than capable of
    EMULATING a MODEM.

    (apologies in advance for the excessive use of caps)
  29. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Heh... Personally I'm thinking in terms of backwards compatibility but
    alright...
    ---
    Commercial viability:
    Sure there were services like Sprint's PCPursuit or BT Tymnet's service
    however your right... both services went the way of the dodo on X.25
    networks (too bad really... personally I think there needs to be a
    revival of modem outdial services)

    All things being equal, this is truly more of a hobbiest tact than a
    multi-million dollar venture capitol setup.

    If I were a BBS operator (which I'm debating on actually), I could have
    people TELNET into my system. What's the fun in that? Not only do
    terminal programs such as QModem not work over IP but my BBS has to
    have a TCP/IP stack loaded into the stack before it talks to FOSSIL and
    then talks to the BBS program which may or may not work.

    However...

    A VoIP replacement of a Virtual Modem complete with AT command set
    would enhance the usability of the technology and make the entire
    system truly universal. It wouldn't matter if they were on the net or
    not as using the appropriate software, they could connect to my
    'virtual' modem pool and connect in (or even from VoIP indial).

    ---

    As for whether or not analogue modem service is a viable or interesting
    proposition, tell that to the millions of people who already have
    dialup services but lack ISP services for some reason (or are unable to
    get broadband which is the only way VoIP even truly works). I think
    there is a extreme interest in keeping compatibility with existing
    technologies in a more digital fashion.

    ---

    Fax services... Tho there are delivery services out there, what would
    be the point of putting it on my business card if I have a computer
    capable of FAX modem telephony? All I'm trying to do is remove the
    middleman which is the ATA from digital communications (including data
    and fax modems). I have nothing against buying ATA's for the bedroom,
    the garage or even the guest bedroom but spending $50US a pop on a
    telephone line extension seems extreme when you consider all the POTS
    technology at hand (again not against spending the dough, but I prefer
    to keep digital digital and remove some of the clutter).

    Sure there are indial services but you take vonage for example. You
    have to pay extra just for them to assign you a fax telephone number.
    Seems to me if my computer is sitting online all the time anyways, it
    could receive the FAX without the need for an extra telephone line or
    the ATA it would sit behind.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Compared to POTS telephone lines, seems pretty fair to me.

    Plus it would give more incentive to digitally minded people to setup
    Asterisk servers and link their telephone lines up.

    Unfortunately, my cash poor ass can't set one up right now. However,
    if I do, I'll do it the right way and hook up a cell phone base to the
    FXO so it can call out on my "any-time" minutes or unlimited nights and
    weekends. :)
  31. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Too bad the pessimistic has reigned.
    ---
    Svre people care. Yov're only thinking of the here-and-now
    applications. Yovr not even thinking of the MILLIONS of other
    applications that take place that yov don't even know of.

    CC/ATM machines all vse modems to commvnicate to the mothership
    clearinghovse.
    Avto Parts, Car Sales etc... all vse dial-vp modems to commvnicate to
    their respective databases to check parts availability (vnless it's a
    major chain).
    Of covrse there is telesensing, bvt it's easier for them to vse GPRS
    technology withovt the need for wires.
    Plvs the million of other applications that go on every day withovt yov
    even realizing it. Go to yovr grocer and walk vp to their cvstomer
    service desk. I bet there's a system there... called Western Union.

    ---

    As for reliving the hayday of modern digital telecommvnications...
    yov're jvst not seeing the bigger pictvre. I gvess living in a world
    where the only thing yov've ever know is WWW. something wovld taint
    that. Me, being from the 01d 5k00l, yearn for a time where I didn't
    need to have 10 million graphics bombarding me jvst to check email or
    being able to QWK packet all my email and news vp so I can review it
    off-line at my leisvre. There is viable applications to all the
    techniqves back then. Previovs it was the cost of telecommvnications.
    Now it's the RELIABILITY of commvnications. Why reinvent the wheel
    when we can make the wheel more common. Seems to me that a Virtval
    Analog Modem is exactly what the doctor is ordering to ensvre
    application compatibility in the time where no dialtone will sovnd.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote:
    > Tests have proven that VoIP can tolerate speeds up to 14.4 better than
    > 80%. Technically I don't require that speed. 2400 is more than
    > sufficient.

    Where are you calling? Minutes in the USA are about 1 cent. How much effort
    will you put into this, and how could it possibly be worthwhile?

    Let's say you put 40 hours into sorting your scheme out, and you value your
    time at $50/hour. In order to break even you'd need to use 200,000 minutes
    of connectivity time. That's 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, for over two
    years. It's just a losing proposition from start to finish.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand
  33. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote:
    > Commercial viability:
    > Sure there were services like Sprint's PCPursuit or BT Tymnet's service
    > however your right... both services went the way of the dodo on X.25
    > networks (too bad really... personally I think there needs to be a
    > revival of modem outdial services)

    To do what with?

    > If I were a BBS operator (which I'm debating on actually), I could have
    > people TELNET into my system. What's the fun in that? Not only do
    > terminal programs such as QModem not work over IP but my BBS has to
    > have a TCP/IP stack loaded into the stack before it talks to FOSSIL and
    > then talks to the BBS program which may or may not work.

    These are much easier problems to solve, and if people cared, they would
    have.

    > A VoIP replacement of a Virtual Modem complete with AT command set
    > would enhance the usability of the technology and make the entire
    > system truly universal. It wouldn't matter if they were on the net or
    > not as using the appropriate software, they could connect to my
    > 'virtual' modem pool and connect in (or even from VoIP indial).

    I really don't understand who would want to.

    > As for whether or not analogue modem service is a viable or interesting
    > proposition, tell that to the millions of people who already have
    > dialup services but lack ISP services for some reason (or are unable to
    > get broadband which is the only way VoIP even truly works). I think
    > there is a extreme interest in keeping compatibility with existing
    > technologies in a more digital fashion.

    To be honest, the only people I have ever heard of using dialup modems for
    anything other than the internet in this day and age fall into a few
    categories, none of whom would be better served by a low-speed,
    high-maintenance-overhead national outdial network:

    1) alarm services - almost always local calls.

    2) devices like TiVO - they contract with indial networks so they're local
    calls for almost everyone. Surely the reach of those networks is broader
    than anything you could create given the limited demand for an inferior
    version with low data rates and bad connection quality.

    3) telesensing - usually local calls, otherwise the tiny cost of
    long-distance is easily justified, and in any case reliability is more
    important than cost.

    4) fax - sending a fax long-distance costs about 5 cents per page or less.
    Anyone who sends in enough volume to care will have contracted with a
    nationwide fax delivery service.

    > Fax services... Tho there are delivery services out there, what would
    > be the point of putting it on my business card if I have a computer
    > capable of FAX modem telephony? All I'm trying to do is remove the
    > middleman which is the ATA from digital communications (including data
    > and fax modems). I have nothing against buying ATA's for the bedroom,
    > the garage or even the guest bedroom but spending $50US a pop on a
    > telephone line extension seems extreme when you consider all the POTS
    > technology at hand (again not against spending the dough, but I prefer
    > to keep digital digital and remove some of the clutter).

    You don't need one ATA per extension (if you're talking about extensions in
    the sense that people normally think about in a home), just one per line.

    > Sure there are indial services but you take vonage for example. You
    > have to pay extra just for them to assign you a fax telephone number.
    > Seems to me if my computer is sitting online all the time anyways, it
    > could receive the FAX without the need for an extra telephone line or
    > the ATA it would sit behind.

    You can get a free fax number from efax.com.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand
  34. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    <donfanning@msn.com> wrote:
    > CC/ATM machines all use modems to communicate to the mothership
    > clearinghouse.

    And there's no compelling argument for them to sacrifice security,
    reliability, and speed for the sake of saving 1 cent per transaction.

    > As for reliving the hayday of modern digital telecommunications...
    > you're just not seeing the bigger picture. I guess living in a world
    > where the only thing you've ever know is WWW. something would taint
    > that. Me, being from the 01d 5k00l, yearn for a time where I didn't
    > need to have 10 million graphics bombarding me just to check email or
    > being able to QWK packet all my email and news up so I can review it
    > off-line at my leisure.

    You're talking to the wrong guy. I've got a collection of acoustic couplers
    going back to when they were the size of a big-city yellow pages. I fondly
    remember the days before CRTs were affordable, when upgrading from a
    round-key teletype to a DECwriter was like stepping onto the set of Star
    Trek. I use text-only tools for mail and news (wouldn't catch me posting
    from MSN) and you couldn't pry me away from the command line for 90% of the
    tasks I do.

    But I do recognize when something changes for the better, and fungible data
    transit over IP is so much better than point-to-point D-A-D in so many ways
    for almost everything that it's not even funny.

    > There is viable applications to all the techniques back then. Previous it
    > was the cost of telecommunications. Now it's the RELIABILITY of
    > communications. Why reinvent the wheel when we can make the wheel more
    > common. Seems to me that a Virtual Analog Modem is exactly what the
    > doctor is ordering to ensure application compatibility in the time where
    > no dialtone will sound.

    It's anathema to reliability. You are adding extra layers of translation,
    conversion, bits of hardware, delay, and entropy, for no conceivable gain.
    What starts as data should stay as data. To convert it to noise, convert
    that noise back to bits, convert those bits back to noise, and convert that
    noise back to bits one last time is the height of pointless friction.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand
  35. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Considering that the data is in fact digital going between MARK and
    SPACE in a modulated dance of data within your internal system (no
    noise) into a SIP phone (no noise again) to an outgoing VSP where upon
    it might gain line noise on the POTS end, seems pretty digital to me
    all the way through.

    IP has WAY too much overhead. Nevermind layers, this is all LAYER 3
    stuff anyways, the audio packet rides on top of an UDP packet therefore
    may introduce noise from dropped packets it still seems to me that
    there is a viable need for it.

    Doesn't matter if you came from the day of accoustic couplers (believe
    me, I've had mine as well), the most you probably did was talk to the
    university's PDP. I'm talking about real users from the home computer
    revolution that connected to BBS's and the like to transfer
    information. Oh sure, there were biffed characters in the data stream.
    That's why protocols for file transfer were created (ala XMODEM,
    KERMIT and Zmodem). But the fact is that these systems were able to
    carry data long before IP was commonplace.

    I remember when I was in college, all three of our major universities
    were tied into a single 56k data line. 10 years later, all three of
    the universities are now OC-48. Sure technology changes, but that's no
    excuse for wantonist and wasteful use of data resources. I see better
    applications for bandwidth like IP-Television. ;)

    At this point we'll just agree to disagree. I still see quite the
    viable need for an Analogous Virtual Modem that travels over VoIP.
    When the architecture is truly unobtrusive and ubiquous, when my fridge
    can stay stocked by itself via online shopping, when I can connect to
    any system in the world (on the Internet or not) without changing
    transport medium, then it's a new world. Till then, we need to keep
    the wrenches turning.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    Ah.... yet another application.

    http://www.dxsoft.com/en/products/calltty/

    We cannot forget about TDD protocols :P
    At least this one is already existing!
  37. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    donfanning@msn.com wrote:

    [snip]

    > At this point we'll just agree to disagree. I still see quite the
    > viable need for an Analogous Virtual Modem that travels over VoIP.
    > When the architecture is truly unobtrusive and ubiquous, when my
    > fridge can stay stocked by itself via online shopping, when I can
    > connect to any system in the world (on the Internet or not) without
    > changing transport medium, then it's a new world. Till then, we
    > need to keep the wrenches turning.

    I'm not sure I want my fridge doing my shopping for me..!

    Ivor
  38. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:16:31 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
    <ivor@despammed.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Rick Merrill wrote:
    >> wkearney99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Given how cheap ATA devices are it seems like a fools errand to
    >>> bother. So, you're effectively talking about having a PC with a modem
    >>> "call" into this device, route it through a VoIP circuit and then
    >>> dial-out again at the remote end to connect to a remote BBS modem?
    >>> Or, skipping the modem on the source end, let the PC use a remote
    >>> FXO interface as an outbound dialing modem to the BBS. Sort of a
    >>> tunnel for modem dialing? Isn't this what terminal servers are
    >>> for? Using VoIP seems like it would add an unnecessary degree of
    >>> complication to it. Besides, BBS and modems? How LAST century...
    >>>
    >>> (this from a guy who actually had and used 300 baud devices once
    >>> upon a time...)
    >>
    >> (I still have one that also does 110 baud...)
    >
    >That's nothing, I used to have a Creed 444 on 50 baud RTTY :-)
    >
    >Ivor

    Sometimes low tech is faster than high tech.

    Wi-Fly and TCP (Transmission by Carrier Pigeons):
    http://www.notes.co.il/benbasat/5240.asp


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  39. The abstraction is to use absolute VoIP

    systems in a altered way. For instance, aback in the day, IBM had

    these MWave modems that were a accepted purpose DSP dent that angled as

    a complete agenda and a modem. I was acquisitive anyone knew of an application

    that would yield my soundcard and do the aforementioned affair over VoIP.

    _________________
    Predictive dialer
Ask a new question

Read More

VPN IP Modem VoIP Sound Cards Networking