Maybe this sounds stupid, but is it possible to connect a dial up modem
using a cordless phone?

My LT has built in modem that can connect fine using standard phone wire,
but thought it might be nice to do away with the clumsy cord.

I know there is an appliance to do this using the LT's built in wireless,
but it's about $150.

It would seem to me that in-as-much as you can get a dial tone using a
cordless phone, there should be a way to use those tones for modem
connection.

TIA

Nick

"Person" <sirspee599a@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:KrXHd.1191$YD5.1007@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Maybe this sounds stupid, but is it possible to connect a dial up modem
> using a cordless phone?
>
> My LT has built in modem that can connect fine using standard phone wire,
> but thought it might be nice to do away with the clumsy cord.
>
> I know there is an appliance to do this using the LT's built in wireless,
> but it's about $150.
>
> It would seem to me that in-as-much as you can get a dial tone using a
> cordless phone, there should be a way to use those tones for modem
> connection.
>
> TIA
>
> Nick

I am sure that someone more knowledgeable than me will comment shortly, but 
I suspect that it can be done, but only at low (read this as "excruciatingly 
slow" by today's standards) data rates.

1)  Most cordless phones (at least the acceptably-good ones) today are 
digital.  Meaning that they convert the analog phone signals into digital 
radio to send to the phone, which converts them back to analog audio.

2)  The 56K modems available today depend on having only one digital => 
analog conversion in their transmission chain (the phone company now is 
largely digital on their long-haul circuits).  Dropping back to 33K, 28K, or 
below is the least that you will "pay" for the extra conversions.

3)  I'm sure that the digital <=> analog conversions are bandwidth limited 
and will reduce speeds further.

My personal guess (this is a GUESS, and is not supported by data) is that it 
would be amazing to connect at 9600 baud (18% of the "true" 53K bandwidth of 
a perfect 56K modem), and most probably at 2400 baud (4.5% [that is 
four-point-five percent, not forty-five] of today's dial-up connection 
speed).

To balance this, that performance is worlds-away from the 600 baud that I 
grew up with, but today's image-rich internet just won't work.

Again, these are guesses, but I believe that they are educated guesses (I've 
been R&D in related businesses for 28 years, but not specifically in 
telecom.  MSEE Stanford, yada-yada.  It is the practical experience which 
counts).

Finally, if you have a cordless phone with a "data port" (I haven't seen any 
myself), the situation might be much better as it could keep the data in the 
digital domain and skip at least one A/D conversion.

If you absolutely must go this route, find an old "acoustic coupler" modem 
(the kind that the Bell telephone handset fits into "cups" which hold 
speakers and microphones) -- probably bargain at a swapfest as an antique --  
jimmy the mechanics to fit your physical phone, and enjoy the 300 baud data 
rate (that's about 30 characters per second -- don't try graphics or the 
Internet with this).  This is the worst-case scenario.

  - Skip

SNIP
> If you absolutely must go this route, find an old "acoustic coupler" modem
> (the kind that the Bell telephone handset fits into "cups" which hold
> speakers and microphones) -- probably bargain at a swapfest as an
antique -- 
> jimmy the mechanics to fit your physical phone, and enjoy the 300 baud
data
> rate (that's about 30 characters per second -- don't try graphics or the
> Internet with this).  This is the worst-case scenario.
>
>   - Skip

Thanks for all of that. Makes sence then that you don't see people doing
this. Even with hard wire connection at home I'm lucky to get 33k
connection.

Do you know if there is much speed loss with the WiFlyer deal
http://www.alwaysonwireless.com/

I'm stuck with dial up at home for now, and it's no big deal since I usually
only do email and the sort at home. I'd love to have a faster connection but
I can "live with* 33K or even 28K. Anything slower then that would be a pain
even for simple text email.

Just want to get away from wires, as I use the LT in different rooms from
time to time.

Nick

I replied in some detail more generally in an direct email to the poster.

Another idea is to use the "wireless phone extenders" that use internal 
house wiring to extend the location of telephone outlets.
(In my industry, they are used to put "virtual telephones" next to consumer 
electronics such as sophisticated DVD players can "call home" via the 
telephone network).
These products will allow you to put a "vitual phone jack" next to any AC 
outlet -- not what was asked for, but which may meet the poster's need for 
transportability.

I have no experinece or knowledge how these work in a data environment, so 
everything above is PURELY GUESSING.

  - Skip

Thanks again Skip, My Dad has one of these he uses to hook up to his
satellite TV, so I tried it out. Works fine, except it drops the connect
speed by about 25-30%. I can only get 28k connection at home with direct
plug in (don't know why) and with this appliance, it drops to 19 or so. Once
down to 14. It's bad enough dealing with dial up at but that's just
ridicules.

I'd still like to hear from someone who tried out that WiFlyer deal. I'd go
for the $150 if I knew it would connect at a decent speed.

Nick

"Skip" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
news:K7SdnZcZ0eqxBW_cRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> I replied in some detail more generally in an direct email to the poster.
>
> Another idea is to use the "wireless phone extenders" that use internal
> house wiring to extend the location of telephone outlets.
> (In my industry, they are used to put "virtual telephones" next to
consumer
> electronics such as sophisticated DVD players can "call home" via the
> telephone network).
> These products will allow you to put a "vitual phone jack" next to any AC
> outlet -- not what was asked for, but which may meet the poster's need for
> transportability.
>
> I have no experinece or knowledge how these work in a data environment, so
> everything above is PURELY GUESSING.
>
>   - Skip
>
>
>
>