Re: Why no internal modem > 2400?

[sheldon@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms)]

In article <5ejfl9$njg$1@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) wrote:

> In article <2000800444-970220060400@rook.wa.com>,
> Brian Hammack <brian.hammack@rook.wa.com> wrote:
> >        We have SCSI cards, we have SecondSight, we have hard drives on
> >cards, but why don't we have internal modems for Apples faster than 2400
> >bps?  This eludes me.   Anyone have any guesses?
> 
>    All (well, both) of my modems have been external. I rather prefer
> being able to move it to whatever computer is doing the networking
> this year, without having to worry about PC/A2/Mac/etc
> interfacing. I'll pay the extra $30-40 to get an external modem and be
> able to move it around.

Also consider the fact that an internal modem for the Apple II would be
considerably MORE expensive than an equivalent generic external modem
due to economies of scale. Frankly, there's just no good reason to
have an internal modem and at least one very bad feature of internal
modems made the news in the past few days:

There was a scam where you downloaded software to access a BBS. The
software dialed up a number in Moldova and then didn't disconnect the
modem when you quit the software. If you had an external modem you could
see immediately that you were still connected and turn the modem off,
as it happened people were charged for hundreds of minutes of long distance
to Moldova even if they left the BBS immediately.

-- 
W. Sheldon Simms III   |   2000 is *still* the 20th century
sheldon@atlcom.net     |