AT>PM> incompatibilities, v34b vs v34+ incompatibilities?????, I
AT>PM> wonder...

AT>v34b?? Could someone update me on it??

 PM> In NetComm's case it probably means v34 beta 

If you want an argument, pick on something else 

 PM> However it (v34bis) is generally regarded to mean the "official"
 PM> 33k6 extensions to the v34 (28k) standards being considered by
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Depends which "general" you're talking about :)  The trade press?
 American modem manufacturers have second-guessed the ITU wrong a time or
two before, but that didn't stop them using psuedo-ITU monikers to flog
modems.  Surely you recall 'V.fc' and 'V.32terbo'? :)

 PM> the ITU (Standards Committee), as v32bis was the 14k4 extensions
 PM> to v32 (9k6). There is also some discussion that it won't be called
 PM> v34bis but something else, so it seems this standards committee's
 PM> may not even keep to its own (naming) standards!!!

.. or your, or "general's" misinterpretation of the ITU conventions used?

That wouldn't be a first, either.  The ITU were at pains to point out, as a
clarification with V.42bis, that 'bis' dodsn't necessarily mean more of the
same, or faster, or anything like that.

Arthur's on an ITU-T committee, maybe he'll fill us in more definitively?

Cheers, Ian

--- MaltEd 1.0.b5