Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Virtual Modem for VoIP

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 12:04:52 AM

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?

More about : virtual modem voip

Anonymous
March 11, 2005 4:00:59 AM

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?
>
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 7:39:17 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 7:39:18 PM

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.)
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:50:10 AM

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.
March 12, 2005 9:50:53 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 10:36:59 AM

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!
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 10:50:16 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 8:52:35 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 5:55:36 PM

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-p...;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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 5:15:58 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 5:17:25 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 5:25:47 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 5:28:32 AM

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.)
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 5:33:04 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 6:01:00 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:11:33 AM

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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 4:44:55 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 4:51:59 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 4:55:13 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:08:04 PM

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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:08:05 PM

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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:18:48 PM

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?
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:20:12 PM

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...)
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:16:31 AM

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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:00:56 AM

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 :) 
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:06:29 AM

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?
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:09:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:12:43 AM

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)
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:28:41 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:31:03 AM

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. :) 
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 3:48:07 AM

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.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:17:05 AM

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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:53:03 AM

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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:53:08 AM

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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:21:32 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:44:11 AM

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
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:16:11 PM

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.
August 11, 2009 1:13:09 PM

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
!