Hi All,

I actually want to use the modem to receive only.

So are we all saying a serial connection (COMM) interface modem is the
fastest? What of the claim the USB modem processes AT commands faster?


--
Kenny
OCA | ECSA | RHCE

p: +2348034939090
e: ke...@nuobjects.com
w: www.nuObjects.com

Bulk SMS Solutions | Managed Hosting | Enterprise Application Development


On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:14 AM, sangprabv <sangpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I forget the model but I use some such as Wavecom and Siemens for COMM
> type and Itegno for USB. Mostly I can send 1 SMS/second but I disable
> all DLR and ACK and working with SQLBox installed and configure the
> throughput to 1.
>
>
>
> Willy
>
>
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 20:27 -0500, Alvaro Cornejo wrote:
> > 1 msg/sec ?
> >
> > Wich modem did you use with what carrier? the most i could get is 56
> msg/5min...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Alvaro
> >
> >
> >
> |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> > Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier
> > celular y Nextel
> > en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via
> > SMS y GPRS online
> >               Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y
> > www.pravcom.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, sangprabv <sangpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > IMHO a GSM Modem may send only 1 SMS/second. And a serial connection
> > > (COMM) will be more stable than a USB one, CMIIW.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Willy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 01:22 +0100, Kenny wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> For a Kannel deployment, what type of modem would be faster? USB or
> > >> Comm interface modem.
> > >>
> > >> I will appreciate your input.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Kenny
> > >> OCA | ECSA | RHCE
> > >>
> > >> p: +2348034939090
> > >> e: ke...@nuobjects.com
> > >> w: www.nuObjects.com
> > >>
> > >> Bulk SMS Solutions | Managed Hosting | Enterprise Application
> > >> Development
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Reply via email to