> On Jan 31, 2025, at 6:19 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > >> Low speed modems are just analog devices that can pass any signal up to >> whatever the design speed limit is. For example, a 103 modem is good up >> to 300 bps, but will happily carry anything less. A 202 modem (see >> below) is designed for 1200 but also will work at lower speeds, and has >> been used at 1260 bps. > > I'd argue those are differing situations, though. Bell 103 and Bell 101 modems > use the same AFSK frequencies, just at different speeds. Bell 202 modems have > specific hardware to support Bell 103, effectively two modems in the same > case. That's not the case for the 202 modem I have; it is definitely 202 only and does not offer 103 compatibility. paul
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Steve Lewis via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Adrian Godwin via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Paul Koning via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Paul Koning via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Paul Berger via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Dennis Boone via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Paul Koning via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Paul Koning via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Fred Cisin via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Tony Duell via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Chuck Guzis via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Frank Leonhardt via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Chuck Guzis via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Johan Helsingius via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Fred Cisin via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Tony Duell via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now David Wade via cctalk
- [cctalk] Re: RS232 then and now Frank Leonhardt via cctalk