On Saturday April 13 1996, Albert Alcoceba wrote to John Piper ...

 JP> Nope. :-) 19200 is typically expressed as V.32terbo (AT&T
implementation).

 AA> v.32terbo was a play on words / terms.  It is actually a proprietary
 AA> standard... but had it been officially ratified it would be v.32ter. Ter
 AA> is french for three.  There are v.xx standards with the 'ter' extension,
 AA> but not common ones.

 AA> Note that protocols such as v.34 and v.Fast Class cover ranges... so 19200
 AA> is a valid v.34 and v.Fast Class rate, as well as v.32terbo.

Very true.

 KR> Who was responsible for developing and releasing the V.fc standard?

 JP> Rockwell in combination with several modem manufacturers.

 AA> This part is always confusing.  That standard you are refering to is V.
 AA> Fast Class.

Yes -- V.FC == V.Fast Class. I know that. 

 AA> V.FC was the working name for what eventually was approved as V.34

Nope. V.Fast (not fast class!) was the working name for what was eventually
approved as V.34. You're right -- in that this is confusing -- but V.FC and
V.34 are totally different standards. V.Fast == V.34; V.FC != V.34.

 KR> Why is 33000bps referred to as V.34+ and not V.34bis?

 JP> Because the ITU-T (formerly known as the CCITT) has not ratified
 JP> V.34bis as an international standard for 33600 bps.

 AA> umm, you mean has not ratified the current V.34+ protocol as the
 AA> international standard. The standard that is ratified as the international
 AA> standard for 33600 (if any) will probably be called V.34bis if it is based
 AA> on v.34.

That was the point I was making.

Johnno (japp{at}mpx.com.au)

... Don't diet, download a virus to remove the FAT.
--- FMail/386 1.02