Fw: [Kantronics] Packet software for Kantronics KAM Plus

Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:02:45 -0400

I'd like to reply OFF LIST but I need a good e-mail address.  Mail to
[email protected] is being refused -- something about spam!  Vic Culver

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deon Erwin" <[email protected]>
To: "Kantronics Reflector" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Kantronics] Packet software for Kantronics KAM Plus

> Hi Vic
>
> I wonder what went wrong with your KAM?  Please let us know.
>
> I received an informative reply from Kantronics' Vice President, following
> my recent enquiry about modem ICs.  I must add that an earlier enquiry,
some
> months ago, went unanswered.
>
> I asked Kantronics which IC one could use in the KAM and KPC-3 if the
> TCM-3105 modem IC fails.  Worldwide production of the TCM-3105 modem IC
has
> ceased, leaving a lot of equipment without spares.  Kantronics expressed
> their concern about the demise of the IC and added that all their products
> which are based on the TCM-3105, are being redesigned.
>
> Many manufacturers, such as PacComm and others, are in the same boat.
>
> Does anyone know of a functional equivalent IC for the TCM-3105?  It does
> not have to be pin compatible, I can make a piggyback circuit board to fit
> the present IC socket.
>
> Regards
> Deon ZR1DQ
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vic Culver <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Kantronics] Packet software for Kantronics KAM Plus
>
> | Jonathan, if you ever find some things that works well perhaps you would
> | share the information with me (or the list).  I understand your
reluctance
> | to pay the big bucks to register their software, as I'm feeling very
> | uncharitable toward Kantronics after sinking big bucks into their KAM
and
> | then the PLUS upgrade, only to find that they can't or won't support the
> KAM
> | boards if they should go belly up, as mine seems to have done.  I feel
as
> if
> | a fraud has been perpetrated against me, but then, I guess in business
> today
> | nobody has to be responsible for anything they do.  I may find a unit
> | someday that somebody doesn't want and maybe I can patch things up that
> way.
>
>
>
>