Gene Lowry wrote in a message to Craig Ford:
 CF> Not quite the case John. USR has _always_ been a supporter of 
 CF> international standards and the standards development process. More 
 CF> times than not, USR has been amongst the first vendors to implement 
 CF> standards in their products.
 GL> Sometimes USR has also embelished on the recommendation (which has
 GL> also caused interoperability problems).  Not to imply they have
 GL> deviated but they have enhanced (and sometimes caused interop
 GL> problems).
Gene, I am not aware of any interop problems caused by USR's extensions. 
USR's V.32terbo 21.6K extension code worked fine with non-extended 19.2K 
v.32terbo from other makers, and 33.6K v.34+ (which was later incorporated in 
the v34 standard) did not break operability with any 28.8K v.34 modems.  What 
you may be thinking of is interop problems with Rockwell v.34+ modems, which 
was caused by Rockwell's faulty 3429 symbol rate implementation, not USR.
If you know of any true interop problems between USR and others related to 
USR enhancements, I'm sure Joe would like to know about them!  :-)
                                   - Bob
Internet  : bob@juge.com
Telnet, Vmodem, WWW or FTP to juge.com
--- timEd/386 1.10+
---------------