Richard Town wrote in a message to Bob Juge:
 BJ> [Image]   V.PCM describes how to upload the DILD, what to
 BJ> respond with, and how to communicate the
 BJ> constellation. The magic lies in the client modem calculating
 BJ> what constellation to use for any given set of digital network
 BJ> conditions. This is NOT specified at all in V.90 and will vary
 BJ> entirely between US Robotics, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems,
 BJ> or Lucent Technologies.
 BJ> The result is that we will have interoperable modems compliant
 BJ> with the V.90 specification and able to talk to each other.
 BJ> But it appears that large disparities in achievable connection
 BJ> speeds will depend on which client modem you are using, and
 BJ> which server modem you connect to. Our testing would indicate
 BJ> these disparities may be enormous - far beyond anything we've
 BJ> seen with previous modem standards. In the previous round of
 BJ> V.34, the Rockwell chipset was ubiquitous and modem
 BJ> performance was fairly level across the universe of available
 BJ> modems. V.34 was basically V.34. In the coming world of V.90,
 BJ> we would expect to see an almost implausible range of
 BJ> operating performance from modems all purporting to be V.90
 BJ> compatible. We'll have a standard, but it won't be very
 BJ> standard with regard to performance.
 BJ> This part of the article's findings has NOT been disputed.
 RT> That doesn't make it true, or accurate, or both.  It's just one
 RT> author's prediction.  So far, with Zoom DualMode in V90, there's
 RT> been very few, if any, interop difficulties with formerly
 RT> X2-now-V90 servers. 
Read the above again.  It does not suggest interop difficulties at all, just 
V.90 client performance differences between vendors.
 RT> But there's just too few ISPs yet with a full rollout to be able to
 RT> be sure.  And Boardwatch's article, having already been roundly
 RT> condemmed by both sides regarding its silly "X2 is better than
 RT> K56flex" claims, cannot be any the more sure either
I agree.  AFAIK, there are no Rockwell/Lucent V.90 hosts available yet.
 RT> Now, you've got an I-Modem setup there which presumably has got at
 RT> least V90 beta code in it.  So what's your experience?  That'd be a
 RT> whole lot more useful than re-quoting the already tarnished...
I don't have a Rockwell V.90 client to test with.  :-)
 RT> "Bellsouth.net, the ISP arm of the Bellsouth telephone company, 
 RT> has announced their exclusive support for the K56Flex protocol, 
 RT> over the x2 protocol.
 RT> "Bellsouth.net serves the Southeastern US with dial-up connections 
 RT> in about 50 cities.  All dial-up lines will be converted to new 
 RT> K56Flex modems by the end of the first quarter of 1998, and some 
 RT> areas have already been upgraded with the new modems.
 RT> "A list of cities and dates for K56Flex activation can be found  on
 RT> the following URL:  www.bellsouth.net/products/56k
 RT> "The conversion process is not expected to be troublesome; new
 RT> Cisco  Systems K56Flex modems are simply replacing the existing
 RT> Cisco 33.6  modems.
 RT> "The ease of conversion, as well as better peformance from K56Flex
 RT> vs.  x2 during trials, were cited as reasons for the Bellsouth.net
 RT> decision  to go with K56Flex.
 RT> Obviously BoardWatch knows far more about lines than hi-techies at
 RT> Bellsouth.  Wonder who's gonna tell 'em?
Richard, it doesn't surprise me that an organization that already owns Cisco 
Rockwell-based equipment is embracing K56Flex, since any other course of 
action would require scrapping all their existing equipment and purchasing 
3Com equipment.  You'll need a different argument to substantiate your 
assertion Bellsouth made this decision based on merit, and not monetary 
concerns (no matter what THEY say).
                                   - Bob
Internet  : bob@juge.com
Telnet, Vmodem, WWW or FTP to juge.com
--- timEd 1.10+
---------------