LT Win Modem and Distinctive Ring support

30 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Eckman

unread,
Aug 31, 2000, 10:12:55 AM8/31/00
to
I've been trying to figure out if the Lucent Win Modem supports distinctive
ring. According to the AT codes PDF file on the Lucent Win Modem support
site, there is a command AT+SDR which has something to do with distinctive
ring, but mentions the DROFF/DRON string, which according to the Microsoft
site is not supported by Windows 9x. Apparently, the TAPI protocol wants to
see things like RINGA, RINGB, etc.

The AT code PDF file on the Lucent site is a few years old. Has the more
recent firmware been updated to support distinctive ring properly for
Windows 9x? If so, what are the relevant AT command strings to enable it.

Thanks for any assistance.

Richard Eckman
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA


Ed Schulz

unread,
Aug 31, 2000, 9:47:25 PM8/31/00
to
"Richard Eckman" <r.s.e...@larc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:8olp0u$587$1...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov...

> I've been trying to figure out if the Lucent Win Modem supports
distinctive
> ring. According to the AT codes PDF file on the Lucent Win Modem support
> site, there is a command AT+SDR which has something to do with distinctive
> ring, but mentions the DROFF/DRON string, which according to the Microsoft
> site is not supported by Windows 9x. Apparently, the TAPI protocol wants
to
> see things like RINGA, RINGB, etc.
>
> The AT code PDF file on the Lucent site is a few years old. Has the more
> recent firmware been updated to support distinctive ring properly for
> Windows 9x? If so, what are the relevant AT command strings to enable it.

The Lucent Win Modem follows ITU Recommendation V.253. Its distinctive ring
feature has not changed since the on-line manual was written. Has Windows
changed yet to support this international standard?

Where is the standard for "RINGA, RINGB, etc?"
--
Ed Schulz
edsc...@lucent.com


Hooda Gest

unread,
Sep 1, 2000, 9:33:30 AM9/1/00
to

Ed Schulz <edsc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NUDr5.34875$e11.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...


No disrespect, Ed, but is your (Lucent's) goal to satisfy the customer or to
adhere rigidly to standards and not adapt to reality?

Hooda

Hooda Gest

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 8:15:29 AM9/2/00
to

Rick Collins <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote in message
news:8opgqn$kkr$1...@gps4.ndhq.dnd.ca...
>
> "Hooda Gest" <be@one_with.com> wrote in message
> news:8oobq4$f2$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...

> > No disrespect, Ed, but is your (Lucent's) goal to satisfy the
> customer or to
> > adhere rigidly to standards and not adapt to reality?
>
> Well, _which_ customer do you want to satisfy? The one who wants the
> modem to send Ring1 or Ring2 or the one who would prefer Line A or
> Line B?
>
> Thus the point of "standards".


I agree with standards, don't get me wrong. The customer I would want to
satisfy is the one who buys my product. I don't care if the OS that covers
90% of the PC's doesn't follow the standard, I implement what that OS uses
so I don't have to point fingers at someone else and say, "It's his fault."
Now, if the errant OS was one that had about 5% of the desktops out there, I
might be willing to point out that my product's features works with 95% of
the desktops and that there is a small minority of systems it work work on
because they do not accept the industry standard. But that isn't what we are
talking about here.

I think, if you check, you will find your modem can use MNP for error
correction and data compression. That's not an official standard either.

Hooda


Rick Collins

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 5:34:46 PM9/2/00
to

"Hooda Gest" <be@one_with.com> wrote in message
news:8oqquf$7gm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

>
> Rick Collins <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote in message
> news:8opgqn$kkr$1...@gps4.ndhq.dnd.ca...
> >
> > "Hooda Gest" <be@one_with.com> wrote in message
> > news:8oobq4$f2$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > No disrespect, Ed, but is your (Lucent's) goal to satisfy the
> > customer or to
> > > adhere rigidly to standards and not adapt to reality?
> >
> > Well, _which_ customer do you want to satisfy? The one who wants
the
> > modem to send Ring1 or Ring2 or the one who would prefer Line A or
> > Line B?
> >
> > Thus the point of "standards".
>
>
> I agree with standards, don't get me wrong. The customer I would
want to
> satisfy is the one who buys my product. I don't care if the OS that
covers
> 90% of the PC's doesn't follow the standard, I implement what that
OS uses
> so I don't have to point fingers at someone else and say, "It's his
fault."

And when the next release of Win changes the accepted response - what
then? Sorry, but though I see your point, I don't agree. The modem
manufacturers are quite correct to adopt the standards proposed by the
standards-setting body. If Win then ignores those standards, the modem
customer's concerns should quite rightly be directed towards MS, not
the modem manufacturer.

> Now, if the errant OS was one that had about 5% of the desktops out
there, I
> might be willing to point out that my product's features works with
95% of
> the desktops and that there is a small minority of systems it work
work on
> because they do not accept the industry standard. But that isn't
what we are
> talking about here.

Better to say that your product works correctly with 100% of the
systems which have followed the standards. MS is big enough to
represent their views to the ITU and, if considered necessary, have
their method adopted into the standard. They didn't, so they lose this
particular battle. :-)

Besides (and I'm going from memory here) it seems to me that what the
original poster posted was the response to a query of the Distinctive
Ring _status_, not the actual string that was returned for a
particular ring pattern.

> I think, if you check, you will find your modem can use MNP for
error
> correction and data compression. That's not an official standard
either.

But it _also_ uses LAPM and BTLZ, which are negotiated in accordance
with the recommended standard, and, in fact, it negotiates MNP in
accordance with that standard. It _works_ because both manufacturers
have adopted "the standard".

Hooda Gest

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 7:14:55 PM9/2/00
to

Rick Collins <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote in message
news:8ors4e$f19$2...@gps4.ndhq.dnd.ca...

Can you say "USB" and "3Com" and "Win98"?

>
> > Now, if the errant OS was one that had about 5% of the desktops out
> there, I
> > might be willing to point out that my product's features works with
> 95% of
> > the desktops and that there is a small minority of systems it work
> work on
> > because they do not accept the industry standard. But that isn't
> what we are
> > talking about here.
>
> Better to say that your product works correctly with 100% of the
> systems which have followed the standards. MS is big enough to
> represent their views to the ITU and, if considered necessary, have
> their method adopted into the standard. They didn't, so they lose this
> particular battle. :-)

Where *does* a 500 lb gorilla sit anyway?


> Besides (and I'm going from memory here) it seems to me that what the
> original poster posted was the response to a query of the Distinctive
> Ring _status_, not the actual string that was returned for a
> particular ring pattern.

Maybe. But I was responding to Ed's remarks and not the original poster's.


> > I think, if you check, you will find your modem can use MNP for
> error
> > correction and data compression. That's not an official standard
> either.
>
> But it _also_ uses LAPM and BTLZ, which are negotiated in accordance
> with the recommended standard, and, in fact, it negotiates MNP in
> accordance with that standard. It _works_ because both manufacturers
> have adopted "the standard".

MNP is not an official standard. It is just a de facto standard that was put
in place prior to the ITU adopting LAPM. Modem makers include it for
compatibility's sake. And this is all I argued... if the majority of the PCs
are following a non-standard, why not include it rather than pouting and
pointing fingers? If the two cannot function side by side, say so but let's
hope other modem makers can't manage to make things work.

But you get my point...

Hooda


Ed Schulz

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 4:06:27 PM9/5/00
to
Hooda Gest wrote:
> And this is all I argued... if the majority of the PCs
> are following a non-standard, why not include it rather than pouting and
> pointing fingers?

I didn't mean to pout. We've had a few end users over the years ask us to
make Distinctive Ring work like this other modem or that other modem. But
I'm not aware of any of our customers, the modem and PC providers, making
such a request.

A search of the Microsoft Knowledge Base shows in
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q240/9/96.ASP :

Distinctive Ring requires:
- Distinctive Ring support in your modem hardware (that is, the modem
must support true Distinctive Ring, and not DRON/DROFF).

At the end of the article, it says:
NOTE: If your modem is outputting DRON/DROFF messages, this is a
non-standard implementation of Distinctive Ring. This implementation
does not work with TAPI-based software, as UnimodemV does not support
this format.

I just think it's kind of funny that Microsoft declares ITU-T V.253 a
"non-standard," especially after Microsoft participated in its creation
(when it was known as the IS-101 Interim Standard).

Does someone have a reference to the "true" Distinctive Ring spec?
--
Ed Schulz
edsc...@lucent.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages