Wardialing Modems Guerrilla Network Opensource Cyberspace [re: Tim May]
[Now using proper Subject tech...] If you have a line, you can still dial each other and negotiate up to 33.8kbps v.34bis, add better software compression (zstd) instead of depending on v.44, and add encryption algos on each end. v.92 56k needed an ISP end to work. Companies like US Robotics and Zoom might still make v.34bis hardware modems... see USR5637. Lots of modems on used market. Full hardware modem with PCM DSP is needed to do elite first pass random phone scanning that analyzes the analog instead of depending on successful second stage "V." negotiation. Plus you get as bonus all the WAV recordings of: "Hello... Helloooooo?! WTF!!!" ;-) Anyone still have that analysis software? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ITU-T_V-series_recommendations You could probably do just as well creating your own modems with today's DIY hardware platforms in your local Makerspace. Opensource it on Github. On 12/23/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps. Now, most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet. I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S. Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down, by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem? 1200 bps? 2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps modems. Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few others. Had that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet available to most people. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem "V.32 modems operating at 9600 bit/s were expensive and were only starting to enter the market in the early 1990s when V.32bis was standardized. Rockwell International's chip division developed a new driver chip set incorporating the standard and aggressively priced it. Supra, Inc. arranged a short-term exclusivity arrangement with Rockwell, and developed the SupraFAXModem 14400based on it. Introduced in January 1992 at $399 (or less), it was half the price of the slower V.32 modems already on the market. This led to a price war, and by the end of the year V.32 was dead, never having been really established, and V.32bis modems were widely available for $250.V.32bis was so successful that the older high-speed standards had little to recommend them. USR fought back with a 16,800 bit/s version of HST, while AT&T introduced a one-off 19,200 bit/s method they referred to as V.32ter, but neither non-standard modem sold well."
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
V.34/28.8 kbit/s and 33.6 kbit/s
×
×
"Any interest in these proprietary improvements was destroyed during the lengthy introduction of the 28,800 bit/s V.34 standard. While waiting, several companies decided to release hardware and introduced modems they referred to as V.FAST. In order to guarantee compatibility with V.34 modems once the standard was ratified (1994), the manufacturers were forced to use more flexible parts, generally a DSP and microcontroller, as opposed to purpose-designed ASIC modem chips. "The ITU standard V.34 represents the culmination of the joint efforts. It employs the most powerful coding techniques including channel encoding and shape encoding. From the mere four bits per symbol (9.6 kbit/s), the new standards used the functional equivalent of 6 to 10 bits per symbol, plus increasing baud rates from 2,400 to 3,429, to create 14.4, 28.8, and 33.6 kbit/s modems. This rate is near the theoretical Shannon limit. When calculated, the Shannon capacity of a narrowband line is {\displaystyle {\text{bandwidth}}\times \log _{2}(1+P_{u}/P_{n})}, with {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}} the (linear) signal-to-noise ratio. Narrowband phone lines have a bandwidth of 3,000 Hz so using {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}=1000} (SNR = 30 dB), the capacity is approximately 30 kbit/s.[7]
In the late 1970's, there was a technology in development called "ISDN", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Services_Digital_Network (Although, you wouldn't know this from this WIkipedia article, which merely makes reference to a 1988 standard.) During the 1970's, I was reading the magazines Electronics, and EDN (Electronics Design News), and others, and there were articles and ads for ISDN chips. Keep in mind that during the 1970's, commonly-available modems worked at speeds of 300 bits/second and 1200 bits/second. If ISDN had actually been delivered promptly, it would have leapfrogged the 9600, 14.4kbps, 28.8 kbps, and higher speeds. However, ISDN was probably developed on the Phone Companys' calendar, very slowly, while the rest of electronics (including modems) were operating on a much-faster time frame. × The ISDN idea was that a telephone line would have quantity 2, 64 kilobits/second channels, as well as a 16 kilobit/second channel. However, one additional good reason that ISDN didn't succeed was simple: The phone companies would certainly have charged a high per-month fee for ISDN lin es. (And such a service would have had a box, analogous to a 'modem', into which your computer would have connected.) The eventual alternative, buying the modems which eventually appeared on the market, was comparatively free. I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines. Jim Bell On Wednesday, December 26, 2018, 2:13:41 AM PST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: [Now using proper Subject tech...] If you have a line, you can still dial each other and negotiate up to 33.8kbps v.34bis, add better software compression (zstd) instead of depending on v.44, and add encryption algos on each end. v.92 56k needed an ISP end to work. Companies like US Robotics and Zoom might still make v.34bis hardware modems... see USR5637. Lots of modems on used market. Full hardware modem with PCM DSP is needed to do elite first pass random phone scanning that analyzes the analog instead of depending on successful second stage "V." negotiation. Plus you get as bonus all the WAV recordings of: "Hello... Helloooooo?! WTF!!!" ;-) Anyone still have that analysis software? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ITU-T_V-series_recommendations You could probably do just as well creating your own modems with today's DIY hardware platforms in your local Makerspace. Opensource it on Github. On 12/23/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps. Now, most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet. I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S. Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down, by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem? 1200 bps? 2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps modems. Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few others. Had that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet available to most people. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem "V.32 modems operating at 9600 bit/s were expensive and were only starting to enter the market in the early 1990s when V.32bis was standardized. Rockwell International's chip division developed a new driver chip set incorporating the standard and aggressively priced it. Supra, Inc. arranged a short-term exclusivity arrangement with Rockwell, and developed the SupraFAXModem 14400based on it. Introduced in January 1992 at $399 (or less), it was half the price of the slower V.32 modems already on the market. This led to a price war, and by the end of the year V.32 was dead, never having been really established, and V.32bis modems were widely available for $250.V.32bis was so successful that the older high-speed standards had little to recommend them. USR fought back with a 16,800 bit/s version of HST, while AT&T introduced a one-off 19,200 bit/s method they referred to as V.32ter, but neither non-standard modem sold well."
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
V.34/28.8 kbit/s and 33.6 kbit/s
×
×
"Any interest in these proprietary improvements was destroyed during the lengthy introduction of the 28,800 bit/s V.34 standard. While waiting, several companies decided to release hardware and introduced modems they referred to as V.FAST. In order to guarantee compatibility with V.34 modems once the standard was ratified (1994), the manufacturers were forced to use more flexible parts, generally a DSP and microcontroller, as opposed to purpose-designed ASIC modem chips. "The ITU standard V.34 represents the culmination of the joint efforts. It employs the most powerful coding techniques including channel encoding and shape encoding. From the mere four bits per symbol (9.6 kbit/s), the new standards used the functional equivalent of 6 to 10 bits per symbol, plus increasing baud rates from 2,400 to 3,429, to create 14.4, 28.8, and 33.6 kbit/s modems. This rate is near the theoretical Shannon limit. When calculated, the Shannon capacity of a narrowband line is {\displaystyle {\text{bandwidth}}\times \log _{2}(1+P_{u}/P_{n})}, with {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}} the (linear) signal-to-noise ratio. Narrowband phone lines have a bandwidth of 3,000 Hz so using {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}=1000} (SNR = 30 dB), the capacity is approximately 30 kbit/s.[7]
ISDN modems were available in retail stores. Anything above v.34bis (ex: v.92, digital lines), required hardware, provisioning, and billing, at the CO. v.34bis and below simply used the available analog voice bandwidth (POTS), telcos resented that because the tech was popular and outside their control, but they did get to sell a lot more voice lines... dialup BBS and Internet. See... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone_Corp._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone ISDN was also fun for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing Telcos *still* ban and resent what their users want to do. Which means some chance at profit still exists for startups building their own neighborhood, local, regional, etc fiber and wifi networks.
Correct. If memory serves me right, not only because some modems caused technical issues with installed telephone infrastructure. But also because the then customary flat rate for local telephone use meant that you could get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was within reach, f.i. university or library. This extra and sustained load could cause technical issues in itself, but it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income. No wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage based. Gr. Peter ____________________________________________________________ Op 26-12-18 om 23:21 schreef jim bell:
I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines.
This was probably due to mechanical (Strowger, Crossbar) mechanical switches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch × These had a very limited ability to make connections; only a small proportion of telephones on a given switch could call each other at a given time. I believe these were called "blocking switches". These things, called "switches", often had the ability to connect to 10,000 subscriber loops.Later, electronic telephone switches allowed more extensive connections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_switching_system ×The big problem is, these switches might have been replaced only after decades of use. It probably didn't take all that many long-term (modem) connections to use up a mechanical switch's connection ability. Jim Bell On Thursday, December 27, 2018, 4:07:24 AM PST, P.J. Westerhof <Peter@isoc.nl> wrote: Correct. If memory serves me right, not only because some modems caused technical issues with installed telephone infrastructure. But also because the then customary flat rate for local telephone use meant that you could get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was within reach, f.i. university or library. This extra and sustained load could cause technical issues in itself, but it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income. No wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage based. Gr. Peter ____________________________________________________________ Op 26-12-18 om 23:21 schreef jim bell:
I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:11:31 +0100 "P.J. Westerhof" <Peter@isoc.nl> wrote:
Correct. If memory serves me right, not only because some modems caused technical issues with installed telephone infrastructure. But also because the then customary flat rate for local telephone use
there was no flat rate here. the phone company was a state monopoly then turned into a 'free market' 'private' government chartered monopoly. I think they were pleased wtih people using modems and paying their extortionary prices.
meant that you could get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was within reach, f.i. university or library. This extra and sustained load could cause technical issues in itself, but it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income. No wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage based.
Hardly surprising.
Gr. Peter ____________________________________________________________
Op 26-12-18 om 23:21 schreef jim bell:
I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines.
Op 26-12-18 om 23:21 schreef jim bell:
I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:37:01PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:11:31 +0100 "P.J. Westerhof" <Peter@isoc.nl> wrote:
Correct. If memory serves me right, not only because some modems caused technical issues with installed telephone infrastructure. But also because the then customary flat rate for local telephone use
there was no flat rate here. the phone company was a state monopoly then turned into a 'free market' 'private' government chartered monopoly. I think they were pleased wtih people using modems and paying their extortionary prices.
Indeed, with the marginal cost being electricity use per connection, i.e. negligible.
meant that you could get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was within reach, f.i. university or library. This extra and sustained load could cause technical issues in itself, but it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income. No wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage based.
Hardly surprising.
Re "it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income": This is an example of insidiously successful 'thought control' or effective/de-facto control of our conversation. RMS highlighted this with respect to e.g. "intellectual property" as a concept inserted into our discussion. In the present instance "lost income" is the same furfy that the MAFIAA http://mafiaa.org/press_room/ uses to claim "lost sales" due to music and film "pirates". This ought be preaching to the converted 'round here, BUT, when we use our opposition's languaging/ phrases, our opposition has gained significantly. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves to insert the word "claimed" before the conjunction "lost income".
On Thursday, December 27, 2018, 2:10:02 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Op 26-12-18 om 23:21 schreef jim bell:
I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:37:01PM -0300, Juan wrote:
meant that you could get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was within reach, f.i. university or library. This extra and sustained load could cause technical issues in itself, but it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income. No wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage based.
Hardly surprising.
Re "it also cost the phone companies a pretty penny in lost income":
This is an example of insidiously successful 'thought control' or effective/de-facto control of our conversation.
Generally, I agree. However, I should point out that if (then-existing) telephone switches were 'blocking', meaning not allowing essentially complete simultaneous connectivity, such connectivity becomes a limited commodity that tends to have to be divvied out, perhaps by price. That probably didn't happen in most of America, because phone service contracts tended to be a fixed monthly cost, rather than in proportion to monthly usage. Both the 1ESS and the 1AESS were 'blocking'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_One_Electronic_Switching_System They didn't allow all phone circuits to be active at one time. ×As that article states, "Most of the thousands of 1ESS and 1AESS offices in the USA were replaced in the 1990s by DMS-100, 5ESS Switch and other digital switches, and since 2010 also by packet switches. As of late 2014, just over 20 1AESS installations remained in the North American network, which were located mostly in AT&T's legacy BellSouth and AT&T's legacy Southwestern Bell states, especially in the Atlanta GA metro area, the Saint Louis MO metro area, and in the Dallas/Fort Worth TX metro area. In 2015, AT&T did not renew a support contract with Alcatel-Lucent (now Nokia) for the 1AESS systems still in operation and notified Alcatel-Lucent of its intent to remove them all from service by 2017. As a result, Alcatel-Lucent dismantled the last 1AESS lab at the Naperville Bell Labs location in 2015, and announced the discontinuation of support for the 1AESS.[7] In 2017, AT&T completed the removal of remaining 1AESS systems by moving customers to other newer technology switches, typically with Genband switches with TDM trunking only.The last known 1AESS switch was in Odessa, TX (Odessa Lincoln Federal wirecenter ODSSTXLI). It was disconnected from service around June 3, 2017 and cut over to a Genband G5/G6 packet switch."[quote ends] I don't know the statistics, but I'd imagine that modem usage in the 1970's was so insignificant to not cause a problem. The 1980's was a decade where there was increasing computer bulletin-board system usage. But, by the early-to-mid 1990's, heavy usage of modems on POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) lines occurred. This made necessary the changeover described in the paragraph above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSTN_network_topology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-4_telephone_switch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._4_Electronic_Switching_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5ESS_Switching_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audichron https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/4ESS_Switch_Emergency_Ac... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Telephone_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electric
https://www.cs.umb.edu/~emm/crackdown/ http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hacker_Crackdown The Hacker Crackdown Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier by Bruce Sterling Part 1: Crashing The System " In the meantime, however, police and corporate security maintained their own suspicions about "the chances of recurrence" and the real reason why a "problem of this magnitude" had appeared, seemingly out of nowhere. Police and security knew for a fact that hackers of unprecedented sophistication were illegally entering, and reprogramming, certain digital switching stations. Rumors of hidden "viruses" and secret "logic bombs" in the switches ran rampant in the underground, with much chortling over AT&T's predicament, and idle speculation over what unsung hacker genius was responsible for it. Some hackers, including police informants, were trying hard to finger one another as the true culprits of the Crash. Telco people found little comfort in objectivity when they contemplated these possibilities. It was just too close to the bone for them; it was embarrassing; it hurt so much, it was hard even to talk about. There has always been thieving and misbehavior in the phone system. There has always been trouble with the rival independents, and in the local loops. But to have such trouble in the core of the system, the long-distance switching stations, is a horrifying affair. To telco people, this is all the difference between finding roaches in your kitchen and big horrid sewer-rats in your bedroom. ... As more and more switches did have that bit of bad luck and collapsed, the call-traffic became more and more densely packed in the remaining switches, which were groaning to keep up with the load. And of course, as the calls became more densely packed, the switches were much more likely to be hit twice within a hundredth of a second. It only took four seconds for a switch to get well. There was no physical damage of any kind to the switches, after all. Physically, they were working perfectly. This situation was "only" a software problem. But the 4ESS switches were leaping up and down every four to six seconds, in a virulent spreading wave all over America, in utter, manic, mechanical stupidity. They kept knocking one another down with their contagious "OK" messages. It took about ten minutes for the chain reaction to cripple the network. Even then, switches would periodically luck-out and manage to resume their normal work. Many calls -- millions of them -- were managing to get through. But millions weren't. ... On Tuesday, September 17, 1991, came the most spectacular outage yet. This case had nothing to do with software failures -- at least, not directly. Instead, a group of AT&T's switching stations in New York City had simply run out of electrical power and shut down cold. Their back-up batteries had failed. Automatic warning systems were supposed to warn of the loss of battery power, but those automatic systems had failed as well. This time, Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark airports all had their voice and data communications cut. This horrifying event was particularly ironic, as attacks on airport computers by hackers had long been a standard nightmare scenario, much trumpeted by computer- security experts who feared the computer underground. There had even been a Hollywood thriller about sinister hackers ruining airport computers -- Die Hard II. Now AT&T itself had crippled airports with computer malfunctions -- not just one airport, but three at once, some of the busiest in the world. By 1991 the System's defenders had met their nebulous Enemy, and the Enemy was -- the System. " https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/16/us/experts-diagnose-telephone-crash.html https://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/att_collapse.html http://www.phworld.org/history/attcrash.htm The Risks Digest - Volume 9, Issue 62 - February 26, 1990. Cause of AT&T network failure "Peter G. Neumann" Fri, 26 Jan 90 14:24:30 PST
From Telephony, Jan 22, 1990 p11: The Crash of the AT&T Network in 1990 ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5928168/stupid-mistakes-in-c-break-switc... If you paid serious attention to every rumor out and about these hacker kids, you would hear all kinds of wacko saucer-nut nonsense: that the National Security Agency monitored all American phone calls, that the CIA and DEA tracked traffic on bulletin-boards with word-analysis programs … — Chapter 2, The Digital Underground Cypherpunks... such nonsense they are.
On 12/27/18, P.J. Westerhof <Peter@isoc.nl> wrote:
some modems caused technical issues with installed telephone infrastructure.
There were power level regulations in modem standards. Sure maybe some linecards weren't well designed and protected, or the switch was buggy, etc.
customery flat rate for local telephone use meant that you could get on the Internet almost indefinitely if an Internet access point was within reach, f.i. university or library.
Fun to dial out from their own modem banks once on their terminals... and so the daisy chain went, around the world.
wonder the phone companies were quick to change their tariffs to usage based.
Similarly BBS's and ISP's didn't like you tacking up all their circuits 24x7, "nobody else could get on", so they had kick timers, fees, even bans. Today's ethernet packet switching just gets slow and droppy instead. Now people can emulate some of the old modem hardware, and software boards and games that got preserved and opensourced ported or cloned, over SSH over and within encrypted anonymous overlay networks for fun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Bell https://github.com/wwivbbs/wwiv
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:21:56PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
In the late 1970's, there was a technology in development called "ISDN", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Services_Digital_Network (Although, you wouldn't know this from this WIkipedia article, which merely makes reference to a 1988 standard.) During the 1970's, I was reading the magazines Electronics, and EDN (Electronics Design News), and others, and there were articles and ads for ISDN chips. Keep in mind that during the 1970's, commonly-available modems worked at speeds of 300 bits/second and 1200 bits/second. If ISDN had actually been delivered promptly, it would have leapfrogged the 9600, 14.4kbps, 28.8 kbps, and higher speeds. However, ISDN was probably developed on the Phone Companys' calendar, very slowly, while the rest of electronics (including modems) were operating on a much-faster time frame. × The ISDN idea was that a telephone line would have quantity 2, 64 kilobits/second channels, as well as a 16 kilobit/second channel. However, one additional good reason that ISDN didn't succeed was simple: The phone companies would certainly have charged a high per-month fee for ISDN lin es. (And such a service would have had a box, analogous to a 'modem', into which your computer would have connected.) The eventual alternative, buying the modems which eventually appeared on the market, was comparatively free. I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines. Jim Bell
The phone companies not only expressed resentment, it was in fact "illegal" to connect anything not made/sold by Bell directly to the phone system. This is at least part of the reason that early modems were "acoustic couplers" (like the modem used in the movie WarGames). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018, 2:13:41 AM PST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
[Now using proper Subject tech...]
If you have a line, you can still dial each other and negotiate up to 33.8kbps v.34bis, add better software compression (zstd) instead of depending on v.44, and add encryption algos on each end. v.92 56k needed an ISP end to work.
Companies like US Robotics and Zoom might still make v.34bis hardware modems... see USR5637. Lots of modems on used market.
Full hardware modem with PCM DSP is needed to do elite first pass random phone scanning that analyzes the analog instead of depending on successful second stage "V." negotiation. Plus you get as bonus all the WAV recordings of: "Hello... Helloooooo?! WTF!!!" ;-)
Anyone still have that analysis software?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ITU-T_V-series_recommendations
You could probably do just as well creating your own modems with today's DIY hardware platforms in your local Makerspace. Opensource it on Github.
On 12/23/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps. Now, most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet. I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S. Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down, by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem? 1200 bps? 2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps modems. Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few others. Had that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet available to most people. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem "V.32 modems operating at 9600 bit/s were expensive and were only starting to enter the market in the early 1990s when V.32bis was standardized. Rockwell International's chip division developed a new driver chip set incorporating the standard and aggressively priced it. Supra, Inc. arranged a short-term exclusivity arrangement with Rockwell, and developed the SupraFAXModem 14400based on it. Introduced in January 1992 at $399 (or less), it was half the price of the slower V.32 modems already on the market. This led to a price war, and by the end of the year V.32 was dead, never having been really established, and V.32bis modems were widely available for $250.V.32bis was so successful that the older high-speed standards had little to recommend them. USR fought back with a 16,800 bit/s version of HST, while AT&T introduced a one-off 19,200 bit/s method they referred to as V.32ter, but neither non-standard modem sold well."
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
V.34/28.8 kbit/s and 33.6 kbit/s
×
×
"Any interest in these proprietary improvements was destroyed during the lengthy introduction of the 28,800 bit/s V.34 standard. While waiting, several companies decided to release hardware and introduced modems they referred to as V.FAST. In order to guarantee compatibility with V.34 modems once the standard was ratified (1994), the manufacturers were forced to use more flexible parts, generally a DSP and microcontroller, as opposed to purpose-designed ASIC modem chips. "The ITU standard V.34 represents the culmination of the joint efforts. It employs the most powerful coding techniques including channel encoding and shape encoding. From the mere four bits per symbol (9.6 kbit/s), the new standards used the functional equivalent of 6 to 10 bits per symbol, plus increasing baud rates from 2,400 to 3,429, to create 14.4, 28.8, and 33.6 kbit/s modems. This rate is near the theoretical Shannon limit. When calculated, the Shannon capacity of a narrowband line is {\displaystyle {\text{bandwidth}}\times \log _{2}(1+P_{u}/P_{n})}, with {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}} the (linear) signal-to-noise ratio. Narrowband phone lines have a bandwidth of 3,000 Hz so using {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}=1000} (SNR = 30 dB), the capacity is approximately 30 kbit/s.[7]
-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On Thursday, December 27, 2018, 7:29:29 AM PST, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote: On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:21:56PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
In the late 1970's, there was a technology in development called "ISDN", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Services_Digital_Network (Although, you wouldn't know this from this WIkipedia article, which merely makes reference to a 1988 standard.) During the 1970's, I was reading the magazines Electronics, and EDN (Electronics Design News), and others, and there were articles and ads for ISDN chips. Keep in mind that during the 1970's, commonly-available modems worked at speeds of 300 bits/second and 1200 bits/second. If ISDN had actually been delivered promptly, it would have leapfrogged the 9600, 14.4kbps, 28.8 kbps, and higher speeds. However, ISDN was probably developed on the Phone Companys' calendar, very slowly, while the rest of electronics (including modems) were operating on a much-faster time frame. × The ISDN idea was that a telephone line would have quantity 2, 64 kilobits/second channels, as well as a 16 kilobit/second channel. However, one additional good reason that ISDN didn't succeed was simple: The phone companies would certainly have charged a high per-month fee for ISDN lin es. (And such a service would have had a box, analogous to a 'modem', into which your computer would have connected.) The eventual alternative, buying the modems which eventually appeared on the market, was comparatively free. I think there was a time in the late 1970's when phone companies expressed resentment that their users were employing modems on their phone lines. > Jim Bell
The phone companies not only expressed resentment, it was in fact "illegal" to connect anything not made/sold by Bell directly to the phone system. This is at least part of the reason that early modems were "acoustic couplers" (like the modem used in the movie WarGames).
Something just now occurred to me! In that movie, WarGames, the technique later called "wardialling" was used, dialling up sequential phone numbers to identify modems. But, the modem in that movie was shown to be an acoustic-coupled one. I don't know if acoustic-couplers were capable of dialling, automatically. They shouldn't have been, unless somebody added a circuit which allowed quick connects and disconnects to be made, probably using some kind of mechanical relay. However, by 1983 (the year of that movie) connecting to telephone lines was legal. See the Carterphone decision.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/carterfone-40-years/ × Jim Bell
On 12/27/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Something just now occurred to me! In that movie, WarGames, the technique later called "wardialling" was used, dialling up sequential phone numbers to identify modems. But, the modem in that movie was shown to be an acoustic-coupled one. I don't know if acoustic-couplers were capable of dialling, automatically. They shouldn't have been, unless somebody added a circuit which allowed quick connects and disconnects to be made, probably using some kind of mechanical relay.
Clip of the setup... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb1r_uKOew4 infohash:628FBADB03469F064BA7F8A51DD5B207B5CC56A4 infohash:77B7CCEFFE9E586FA21CDA9A404922E7FB41D0D2 smaller People sometimes make mistakes...
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:12:18AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
[Now using proper Subject tech...]
If you have a line, you can still dial each other and negotiate up to 33.8kbps v.34bis, add better software compression (zstd) instead of depending on v.44, and add encryption algos on each end. v.92 56k needed an ISP end to work.
Companies like US Robotics and Zoom might still make v.34bis hardware modems... see USR5637. Lots of modems on used market.
Full hardware modem with PCM DSP is needed to do elite first pass random phone scanning that analyzes the analog instead of depending on successful second stage "V." negotiation. Plus you get as bonus all the WAV recordings of: "Hello... Helloooooo?! WTF!!!" ;-)
Anyone still have that analysis software?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ITU-T_V-series_recommendations
You could probably do just as well creating your own modems with today's DIY hardware platforms in your local Makerspace. Opensource it on Github.
I found my high school's SCO Unix system using Toneloc back in the day (and a ton of other shit too...) I'd leave that thing running on my 286 all day long, like 8am - 4pm, for weeks at a time. I understand that WarVOX is at least one of the more modern incarnations of Toneloc, uses VoIP to make a bunch of calls at the same time, other neat tricks. I haven't actually used it as I did with toneloc, when I was a kid :)
On 12/23/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps. Now, most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet. I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S. Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down, by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem? 1200 bps? 2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps modems. Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few others. Had that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet available to most people. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem "V.32 modems operating at 9600 bit/s were expensive and were only starting to enter the market in the early 1990s when V.32bis was standardized. Rockwell International's chip division developed a new driver chip set incorporating the standard and aggressively priced it. Supra, Inc. arranged a short-term exclusivity arrangement with Rockwell, and developed the SupraFAXModem 14400based on it. Introduced in January 1992 at $399 (or less), it was half the price of the slower V.32 modems already on the market. This led to a price war, and by the end of the year V.32 was dead, never having been really established, and V.32bis modems were widely available for $250.V.32bis was so successful that the older high-speed standards had little to recommend them. USR fought back with a 16,800 bit/s version of HST, while AT&T introduced a one-off 19,200 bit/s method they referred to as V.32ter, but neither non-standard modem sold well."
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
V.34/28.8 kbit/s and 33.6 kbit/s
×
×
"Any interest in these proprietary improvements was destroyed during the lengthy introduction of the 28,800 bit/s V.34 standard. While waiting, several companies decided to release hardware and introduced modems they referred to as V.FAST. In order to guarantee compatibility with V.34 modems once the standard was ratified (1994), the manufacturers were forced to use more flexible parts, generally a DSP and microcontroller, as opposed to purpose-designed ASIC modem chips. "The ITU standard V.34 represents the culmination of the joint efforts. It employs the most powerful coding techniques including channel encoding and shape encoding. From the mere four bits per symbol (9.6 kbit/s), the new standards used the functional equivalent of 6 to 10 bits per symbol, plus increasing baud rates from 2,400 to 3,429, to create 14.4, 28.8, and 33.6 kbit/s modems. This rate is near the theoretical Shannon limit. When calculated, the Shannon capacity of a narrowband line is {\displaystyle {\text{bandwidth}}\times \log _{2}(1+P_{u}/P_{n})}, with {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}} the (linear) signal-to-noise ratio. Narrowband phone lines have a bandwidth of 3,000 Hz so using {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}=1000} (SNR = 30 dB), the capacity is approximately 30 kbit/s.[7]
-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On 12/27/18, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:12:18AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
[Now using proper Subject tech...]
If you have a line, you can still dial each other and negotiate up to 33.8kbps v.34bis, add better software compression (zstd) instead of depending on v.44, and add encryption algos on each end. v.92 56k needed an ISP end to work.
Companies like US Robotics and Zoom might still make v.34bis hardware modems... see USR5637. Lots of modems on used market.
Full hardware modem with PCM DSP is needed to do elite first pass random phone scanning that analyzes the analog instead of depending on successful second stage "V." protocol negotiation. Plus you get as bonus all the WAV recordings of: "Hello... Helloooooo?! WTF!!!" ;-)
Anyone still have that analysis software?
I understand that WarVOX is at least one of the more modern incarnations of Toneloc, uses VoIP to make a bunch of calls at the same time, other neat tricks.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140326101358/http://warvox.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarVOX Sounds like the above DSP analysis tech, but not being based on modem and hardline, might not be the same one from earlier history. The modem's onboard ADC would ouput per call PCM stream back over the serial port for later processing, FFT, etc. For sorting and discriminating whatever picked up into fun lists for later testing. US Robotics later models were some that had those extra commands. Maybe hard to find command example docs, and results and wav's, of that now.
Toneloc
https://www.reddit.com/user/mthreat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_dialing
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
P.J. Westerhof -
Zenaan Harkness