[Dreaming]

Apple doesn't make a 56K USB modem any longer. If I want to continue my dial-up internet access on a new Intel-based iMac, does anyone know of compatible modems?

Would a dial-up modem plug into the RJ-45 ethernet port, or would it have to be a USB modem?

Or is there such a thing as a telephone jack adapter that I can plug into one of the USB ports that would allow me to connect a dial-up modem?

Thanks so much.

[ibook_steve]

It would have to be USB, but where are you that you can't get broadband?

Steve

[Big Mac]

USB dial-up modems are what you need to look for. Ethernet based dial-up modems may exist, but I've never heard of them.

The Apple USB Modem is no longer available at the Apple Store, but a lot of places online have them. If you'd rather buy another brand, check for Mac compatibility and you should be fine.

ibook_steve, I had to rely on dial-up at one of my residences because we chose satellite over cable TV and there was no DSL on our side of the street (no remote terminal) until late last year when U-Verse came to the city. Yes, it was VERY annoying.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

USB dial-up modems are what you need to look for. Ethernet based dial-up modems may exist, but I've never heard of them.

They exist, but were very expensive.

[Big Mac]

Interesting to note.

[ibook_steve]

And here you go:

http://www.megamacs.com/v0/?action=view&pid=3485215

Steve

[tooki]

Or buy an older Apple AirPort Base Station (ABS) that has a built-in modem. In practice, dialing up through the ABS is faster and more reliable than using a modem directly on the computer, so it's a great way to do it.

[Dreaming]

Thank you all for such quick and helpful responses. And thank you ibook Steve for the Megamacs link.

Just wondering though... does this mean people with broadband (DSL or cable) are unable to send faxes via their computers? And if they want to send faxes, does this mean they're in the same boat as I am and require a dial-up modem?

If the user has a multi-function device (printer/scanner/fax), is a dial-up modem built into the device in order to allow the faxing, or does the user still require a separate modem to connect to the multi-function?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dreaming 

Thank you all for such quick and helpful responses. And thank you ibook Steve for the Megamacs link.

Just wondering though... does this mean people with broadband (DSL or cable) are unable to send faxes via their computers? And if they want to send faxes, does this mean they're in the same boat as I am and require a dial-up modem?

If the user has a multi-function device (printer/scanner/fax), is a dial-up modem built into the device in order to allow the faxing, or does the user still require a separate modem to connect to the multi-function?

There are a lot of "online faxing" services, though most are not free. Unfortunately there is still a stigma attached to emailing a scanned document, when you might use the same scanner to fax that same document. People don't understand how inherently weak the security of a fax is, and that leads to wanting faxes for "official documents" instead of accepting secure email for the same documents.

In general though, if you want/need to fax documents much, a dedicated fax machine or fax modem is pretty much required. I handle this with a Canon all-in-one printer/scanner/fax machine, which cost me about $80. I got this machine because a) I needed a new color printer and b) I needed a scanner that worked with Macs. The fax capability was a lagniappe, but I've used it quite a bit. Sure, I have to print a page in order to fax it, but I can do that cheap with my laser (also under $90-yes, I'm cheap ) and I have a backup to prove I produced the document in the first place. Direct faxing would be nice though...

[olePigeon]

You can send/receive faxes with DSL because most phone companies require you to buy a regular phone line before singing up for DSL.

Technically it's not required, but the telcos will charge 3x as much for DSL without a phone line, so it's "cheaper" to buy DSL with the phone line.

If you're fortunate to live in a city/state where they don't price gouge you, many offer the ability to FAX as an extra option to DSL.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You can send/receive faxes with DSL because most phone companies require you to buy a regular phone line before singing up for DSL.

Technically it's not required, but the telcos will charge 3x as much for DSL without a phone line, so it's "cheaper" to buy DSL with the phone line.

If you're fortunate to live in a city/state where they don't price gouge you, many offer the ability to FAX as an extra option to DSL.

My son got AT&T DSL without a hot landline. He's even gotten a discount on it because he has an AT&T cell phone. Times, they are a changin'.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unfortunately there is still a stigma attached to emailing a scanned document, when you might use the same scanner to fax that same document. People don't understand how inherently weak the security of a fax is, and that leads to wanting faxes for "official documents" instead of accepting secure email for the same documents.

Yeah, I don't understand this. My GP's office made me fax a prescription form to them, even though emailing would have been much faster. Not to mention that when you scan and email, the quality of the document is usually a hell of a lot better than faxing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There are a lot of "online faxing" services, though most are not free. Unfortunately there is still a stigma attached to emailing a scanned document, when you might use the same scanner to fax that same document. People don't understand how inherently weak the security of a fax is, and that leads to wanting faxes for "official documents" instead of accepting secure email for the same documents.

While this is true, the situation here in Europe is that faxes are legally binding, while computer-based transmission is not.

IOW, a signed contract faxed to a client is legally binding, while a scanned copy sent with an e-mail is not.

This discrepancy needs to be corrected, but the logical consequence would be to recognize the farce of fax "security" (especially seeing how easy it is to fax directly from a computer) and disqualify their contractual validity, and *that* would immediately destroy tens of thousands of corporate workflows and cost tremendous amounts of money.

So it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

It needs to start though. Here in the States, I don't know of any formal legislation that makes faxed documents "legally binding," but signatures on faxed documents are accepted as original signatures.

While faxing is cheap and fairly convenient, there is no problem at all in altering a document digitally before it is sent, or with intercepting a faxed document and either taking advantage of confidential information it may contain or otherwise exploiting this lack of security. Public key encryption is cheap to free, is very convenient, and is VERY secure, offering both security and reliable non-repudiation (only the key's owner can digitally sign something, so if it's got that digital signature, it's THEIR digital signature).

Simply establishing a minimum standard for encryption, which can be exceeded by commercial products, and a similar minimum standard for digital signatures is all that it would take to formally, officially, and CHEAPLY start this conversion process. Unfortunately, I think it will take a BIG incident, where a huge business or government agency gets thoroughly ripped off-or worse-before anyone sits up and takes notice of this catastrophe-waiting-to-happen.

Anyway, that's my 2¢ worth on fax vs. secure email.

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

While this is true, the situation here in Europe is that faxes are legally binding, while computer-based transmission is not.

IOW, a signed contract faxed to a client is legally binding, while a scanned copy sent with an e-mail is not.

Eh...source? I scan signed documents and email them all the time, and I get them back too. We have a fax, so I might use it, but this is so much more convenient. The fax is mostly there because it is the ultimate fall-back device if everything else fails.

[gbuschmann]

Originally Posted by Dreaming 

Apple doesn't make a 56K USB modem any longer. If I want to continue my dial-up internet access on a new Intel-based iMac, does anyone know of compatible modems?

Would a dial-up modem plug into the RJ-45 ethernet port, or would it have to be a USB modem?

Or is there such a thing as a telephone jack adapter that I can plug into one of the USB ports that would allow me to connect a dial-up modem?

Thanks so much.

Check out this product. It is compact and quiet and very easy. It needs no electrical outlet, the phone plugs into the modem and the other end of the modem is a USB jack which plugs into the computer. Only problem - sometimes we have to unplug it and reconnect it to unfreeze it. (We run a couple of older software programs and one of them may be incompatable with this ZOOM modem, but by unplugging and repluggin it, it always reboots it with no other trouble.)
Zoom Telephonics: Dial-Up External USB Modem Products - Overview

Glen B

[ghporter]

Hey Glen, I'd forgotten all about Zoom. They used to offer inexpensive but quite effective modems, as well as other stuff. And that mini modem looks like a "stylishly black" version of Apple's former USB modem product, too.

Oh, and you spell your name wrong.