Wardialing Modems Guerrilla Network Opensource Cyberspace [re: Tim May]

John Newman jnn at synfin.org
Thu Dec 27 06:59:15 PST 2018

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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20181227/cdad8a17/attachment-0002.sig>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list